ArticleBJGP open2024
An evaluation of the social deprivation practice grant in Irish general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe inverse care law states that availability of good medical care varies inversely with the need for it in the population served. In 2019, the main medical union and the Department of Health in the Republic of Ireland (RoI), agreed on funding a social deprivation practice grant for general practices in urban deprived areas.
aimTo examine the implementation and impact of the social deprivation practice grant in participating general practices. DESIGN &
settingA mixed-methods study with sequential design based in Irish general practice.
methodData were collected using a questionnaire and online semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff. Data were analysed separately, and the findings compared to examine the extent to which they converged or diverged.
resultsThere were 25 survey responses and nine interviews. All practices reported the grant was beneficial and most practices utilised the grant to fund additional doctor hours (17/25). Both surveys and interviews indicated that a small amount of additional funding allowed additional clinical need in areas of deprivation to be addressed, but there were some barriers identified in accessing the grant and implementing planned expenditure.
conclusionDelivery of health care in areas of socioeconomic deprivation presents significant challenges. While there were some problems with implementation, the introduction of a small, targeted grant for general practices in areas of social deprivation allowed those practices to enhance their services, with tailored initiatives seeking to meet the needs of their patient populations.
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.