ArticleCJEM2024
Healthcare workers' perspectives on a prescription phone program to meet the health equity needs of patients in the emergency department: a qualitative study.
Article in CJEM, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators to Abdominal Organ Transplant Access.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Technology Adoption in Emergency Departments: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPeople experiencing homelessness and marginalization face considerable barriers to accessing healthcare services. Increased reliance on technology within healthcare has exacerbated these inequities. We evaluated a hospital-based prescription phone program aimed to reduce digital health inequities and improve access to services among marginalized patients in Emergency Departments. We examined the perceived outcomes of the program and the contextual barriers and facilitators affecting outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a constructivist qualitative program evaluation at two urban, academic hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. We interviewed 12 healthcare workers about their perspectives on program implementation and outcomes and analyzed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsOur analyses generated five interrelated program outcomes: building trust with patients, facilitating independence in healthcare, bridging sectors of care, enabling equitable care for marginalized populations, and mitigating moral distress among healthcare workers. Participants expressed that phone provision is critical for adequately serving patients who face barriers to accessing health and social services, and for supporting healthcare workers who often lack resources to adequately serve these patients. We identified key contextual enablers and challenges that may influence program outcomes and future implementation efforts.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that providing phones to marginalized patient populations may address digital and social health inequities; however, building trusting relationships with patients, understanding the unique needs of these populations, and operating within a biopsychosocial model of health are key to program success.
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.