ArticleBMC primary care2024
Care-experienced young people's views and experiences of accessing general practice and dental services and attending health reviews in England: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
- A scoping review of how the candidacy framework has been used in research on access to general practice.Journal of health services research & policy · 2026Article
- Negotiating Access to Health and Wellbeing Support in Schools for Young People with Chronic Health Conditions in English Secondary Schools: A Qualitative Multi-Informant Study.Continuity in education · 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
backgroundChildren in care and care leavers have worse health outcomes than their peers without care experience. This study addresses an evidence gap in exploring care-experienced young people's views and experiences of accessing general practice and dental services and attending health reviews in England.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using podcasting as a creative medium. We recruited young people from two sites: one in South England (A) and one in greater London (B). We held two paired discussions in site A and two focus groups in site B, with 14 participants in total. Participants were aged between 13 and 22 years and were diverse in gender, ethnicity, and care experiences. Data were analysed thematically using candidacy theory as a theoretical framework.
resultsMental health was a prevailing concern for participants, but general practice was not considered a place to discuss it. Most participants reported distant relationships with primary healthcare professionals and considered opening-up to a professional to be risky, for example, it could result in an unknown/unwanted outcome. A lack of time and personal connection in appointments, and experiences of feeling judged, dismissed, or misunderstood, hindered young people's ability to disclose mental health or relationship concerns. Participants reported variation in the timeliness and location of services, with salient examples of extensive waiting periods for braces. Participants perceived annual health reviews to be largely inconsequential.
conclusionsAny primary care presentation by a care-experienced young person should trigger additional professional curiosity. To build rapport and trust, professionals should not underestimate the power of active listening, being reliable and honest, and small acts of thoughtfulness, for example, ensuring medical letters are provided promptly. Carers and other trusted professionals should help care-experienced young people to understand the role of primary care and support them with access. Health reviews may not be of value to all young people in care. Further research is needed to examine primary healthcare access for care-experienced young people with significant safeguarding and healthcare needs.
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.