ArticlePloS one2024
Understanding intersectional inequality in access to primary care providers using multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Gendered experiences of cause-specific unmet medical need: An intersectional analysis using MAIHDA.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Racial and Social Disparities in Primary Healthcare Access and Wait Times in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Article
- Health inequities in functional limitation among Mexican older adults: An intersectional approach.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the Canadian healthcare system's commitment to equity, evidence for disparate access to primary care (PC) providers exists across individual social identities/positions. Intersectionality allows us to reflect the realities of how social power shapes healthcare experiences at an individual's interdependent and intersecting social identities/positions. The objectives of this study were to determine: (1) the extent to which intersections can be used classify those who had/did not have a PC provider; (2) the degree to which each social identity/position contributes to the ability to classify individuals as having a PC provider; and (3) predicted probabilities of having a PC provider for each intersection. METHODS AND
findingsUsing national cross-sectional data from 241,445 individuals in Canada aged ≥18, we constructed 320 intersections along the dimensions of gender, age, immigration status, race, and income to examine the outcome of whether one had a PC provider. Multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy, a multi-level model using individual-level data, was employed to address intersectional objectives. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 23% (95%CI: 21-26%) suggests that these intersections could, to a very good extent, explain individual variation in the outcome, with age playing the largest role. Not all between-intersection variance in this outcome could be explained by additive effects of dimensions (remaining ICC: 6%; 95%CI: 2-16%). The highest intersectional predicted probability existed for established immigrant, older South Asian women with high income. The lowest intersectional predicted probability existed for recently immigrated, young, Black men with low income.
conclusionsDespite a "universal" healthcare system, our analysis demonstrated a substantial amount of inequity in primary care across intersections of gender, age, immigration status, race, and income.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.