ArticleJournal of migration and health2024
The hostile environment in primary care: Qualitative analysis of a cross sectional survey of health care professionals in primary care.
Article in Journal of migration and health, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2014 the UK government rolled out the then called hostile environment as a series of punitive policies designed to disenfranchise undocumented migrants from living in Britain. As part of these measures upfront charging was introduced in 2017 which saw patients being denied treatment without prior full payment based on their immigration status. Aim: Assess the knowledge of the charging regulations in a sample of primary care practitioners. Assess the impact of the regulations on both patients and practitioners in a primary care setting. Methods: Building on a previous survey by the RCPCH, a cross sectional survey was circulated through the RCGP faculties and GP training groups within England. Demographic information and likert responses were collected from over 300 responses. Thematic analysis of over 120 white space questions was undertaken to create themes and sub-themes. Results: Results showed an overall poor knowledge of the regulations. Thematic analysis was split into two main categories, (i) human impact of the policies and (ii) the economic and political impact of the policies. Key points were (i) lack of knowledge and awareness of the regulations, (ii) evidence of patient harm through patients' being denied care, avoiding care or having care delayed, (iii) evidence of clinician harm through burnout, stress, a loss of faith in practice and concerns over extra work and (iv) concerns over implicit bias and structural racism within primary care and (v) concerns over lack of economic analysis. Conclusion: Charging of overseas visitors is poorly understood within primary care despite having an impact on both patients and practitioners within this setting. Recommendations to help tackle this issue and reduce harm include training of staff, systematic reporting of harm, and a system wide economic analysis.
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.