Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40977244›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2025

Digital Primary Care Services, Procedural Justice and Intersectionality: A Critical Realist Approach.

Gina Netto, Farjana Islam, Sara Bailey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gina NettoInstitute of Place, Environment and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7552-5683
Farjana IslamInstitute of Place, Environment and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Sara BaileyInstitute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/W032333/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare systems in many international contexts have been rapidly digitalised in recent years. Yet, despite the significant transformation of such systems and well-documented evidence of ethnic inequalities in the use of health services, the consequences of such changes on fairness in decision-making processes or procedural justice for racially minoritised people have been under-explored. Further, little attention has been paid to the influence of social determinants of health and systems of oppression, such as racism and patriarchy, on digital healthcare and the ways in which these intersect with each other. We developed a novel critical realist intersectional theoretical and analytical framework to interrogate procedural justice in digital primary care as experienced by racially minoritised people, employing the widely used criteria of voice, trust and impartiality. Analysis of interviews with 100 people from racially minoritised communities in the United Kingdom revealed serious shortcomings with respect to all three criteria, which need to be urgently addressed. We propose a multi-pronged approach, which recognises high levels of digital poverty, variations in digital literacy and proficiency in English and the need for more attention to the design of digital services and workforce training, along with proactive use of digital services to address existing ethnic inequalities.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyHealthcare DisparitiesPrimary Health CareSocial JusticeEthnicityFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchRacismSocial Determinants of HealthUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID40977244
PMCPMC12451410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.