Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries.Methods
We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.Results
Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES.Conclusion
This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare.Prospero registration number
CRD42019123222 .
SUBMITTER: Lueckmann SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7874661 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review.
Lueckmann Sara Lena SL Hoebel Jens J Roick Julia J Markert Jenny J Spallek Jacob J von dem Knesebeck Olaf O Richter Matthias M
International journal for equity in health 20210210 1
<h4>Background</h4>Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries.<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, repor ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients with stable chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension can be safely managed at the primary care level. Yet many such patients continue to follow-up with specialists at a higher expense with no added benefit. We introduce a new term to describe this phenomenon: scope inversion, defined as the provision of primary care by specialist physicians. We aimed to quantify the extent of scope inversion by conducting a systematic review. MEDLINE and five other databases were searched using the keywords 'specialist AND (routine OR primary) AND provi*' as well as other variations. The search was limited to human research without restrictions on language or date of publication. The inclusion criterion was studies on rates of the provision of routine primary care by specialist physicians. Thirteen observational studies met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of primary care involvement was observed among specialists, from 2.6% to 65%?of clinic visits. Among children, 41.3% of visits with specialists were routine follow-ups for conditions such as allergic rhinitis and seborrhoeic dermatitis which could be managed in primary care. Data quality was moderate to low across the studies due to limitations of source data and varying definitions of primary care. Specialist physicians provide primary care to patients in a substantial proportion of clinic visits. Scope inversion is wasteful as it diverts patients to more expensive care without improving outcomes. A systems approach is needed to mitigate scope inversion and its harmful effects on healthcare service delivery.
| S-EPMC7046372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs).ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010.Eligibility criteriaPAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.Results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors.Processthe majority of PAs' workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results.Outcomesacceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time.Limitationsidentification of a broad range of studies examining 'contribution' made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.ConclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce.
| S-EPMC3698179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNeglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are generally assumed to be concentrated in poor populations, but evidence on this remains scattered. We describe within-country socioeconomic inequalities in nine NTDs listed in the London Declaration for intensified control and/or elimination: lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH), trachoma, Chagas' disease, human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), leprosy, and visceral leishmaniasis (VL).MethodologyWe conducted a systematic literature review, including publications between 2004-2013 found in Embase, Medline (OvidSP), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Popline, Lilacs, and Scielo. We included publications in international peer-reviewed journals on studies concerning the top 20 countries in terms of the burden of the NTD under study.Principal findingsWe identified 5,516 publications, of which 93 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 papers reported substantial and statistically significant socioeconomic inequalities in NTD distribution, with higher odds of infection or disease among poor and less-educated people compared with better-off groups. The findings were mixed in 23 studies, and 11 studies showed no substantial or statistically significant inequality. Most information was available for STH, VL, schistosomiasis, and, to a lesser extent, for trachoma. For the other NTDs, evidence on their socioeconomic distribution was scarce. The magnitude of inequality varied, but often, the odds of infection or disease were twice as high among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups compared with better-off strata. Inequalities often took the form of a gradient, with higher odds of infection or disease each step down the socioeconomic hierarchy. Notwithstanding these inequalities, the prevalence of some NTDs was sometimes also high among better-off groups in some highly endemic areas.ConclusionsWhile recent evidence on socioeconomic inequalities is scarce for most individual NTDs, for some, there is considerable evidence of substantially higher odds of infection or disease among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. NTD control activities as proposed in the London Declaration, when set up in a way that they reach the most in need, will benefit the poorest populations in poor countries.
| S-EPMC4865383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMaintaining a healthy physician workforce includes the routine use of primary care physician (PCP) services; however, physicians may face barriers to attaining formal care.ObjectiveTo analyze access to and frequency of visits to PCPs among physicians compared with nonphysicians.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cohort study used registration data from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 1990, to March 31, 2018. Data for all newly practicing physicians as of March 31, 2018, were linked to Ontario health administrative databases. Data were analyzed from August 25, 2020, to August 6, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were enrollment in a PCP practice and visits with a PCP. Generalized estimating equations compared primary care visits between physicians and nonphysicians, matched 1:5 based on age, sex, neighborhood income quintile, and health region.ResultsAmong 19 581 physicians (mean [SD] age, 43.99 [8.94] years; 53.27% male) matched to 97 905 nonphysicians, physicians were less likely to be enrolled with a PCP than were nonphysicians (81.8% vs 86.4%; absolute difference, 4.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72-0.79) and had fewer primary care visits during the preceding 2 years (median [IQR], 2 [0-4] vs 4 [1-7]; adjusted relative rate ratio [RRR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.58-0.60). Physicians aged 40 years or older and male physicians were less likely to be rostered (ages 40-44 years: OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.64-0.77]; male: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.57-0.63]) and more likely to have a lower frequency of PCP visits (ages 40-44 years: RRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.56]; male: RRR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.50-0.51]) compared with nonphysicians.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort study, enrollment with a PCP practice and frequency of visits were lower among physicians compared with a matched general population of nonphysicians. Individual, system, and medical cultural factors associated with these results need to be better understood so that physicians can take better care of themselves and their patients.
| S-EPMC9391953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.Methods and findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.ConclusionsPatients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.
| S-EPMC3564770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To describe the average primary care physician consultation length in economically developed and low-income/middle-income countries, and to examine the relationship between consultation length and organisational-level economic, and health outcomes. DESIGN AND OUTCOME MEASURES:This is a systematic review of published and grey literature in English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian languages from 1946 to 2016, for articles reporting on primary care physician consultation lengths. Data were extracted and analysed for quality, and linear regression models were constructed to examine the relationship between consultation length and health service outcomes. RESULTS:One hundred and seventy nine studies were identified from 111 publications covering 28 570 712 consultations in 67 countries. Average consultation length differed across the world, ranging from 48?s in Bangladesh to 22.5?min in Sweden. We found that 18 countries representing about 50% of the global population spend 5?min or less with their primary care physicians. We also found significant associations between consultation length and healthcare spending per capita, admissions to hospital with ambulatory sensitive conditions such as diabetes, primary care physician density, physician efficiency and physician satisfaction. CONCLUSION:There are international variations in consultation length, and it is concerning that a large proportion of the global population have only a few minutes with their primary care physicians. Such a short consultation length is likely to adversely affect patient healthcare and physician workload and stress.
| S-EPMC5695512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSymptom recognition and timely referral in primary care are crucial for the early diagnosis of cancer. Physician assistants or associates (PAs) have been introduced in 18 healthcare systems across the world, with numbers increasing in some cases to address primary care physician shortages. Little is known about their impact on suspected cancer recognition and referral. This review sought to summarise findings from observational studies conducted in high income countries on PAs' competence and performance on processes concerned with the quality of recognition and referral of suspected cancer in primary care.MethodA rapid systematic review of international peer-reviewed literature was performed. Searches were undertaken on OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases (2009-2019). Studies were eligible if they reported on PA skills, processes and outcomes relevant to suspected cancer recognition and referral. Title and abstract screening was followed by full paper review and data extraction. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative findings was undertaken on three themes: deployment, competence, and performance. Preliminary findings were discussed with an expert advisory group to inform interpretation.ResultsFrom 883 references, 15 eligible papers were identified, of which 13 were from the USA. Seven studies reported on general clinical processes in primary care that would support cancer diagnosis, most commonly ordering of diagnostic tests (n = 6) and referrals to specialists (n = 4). Fewer papers reported on consultation processes, such as examinations or history taking (n = 3) Six papers considered PAs' competence and performance on cancer screening. PAs performed similarly to primary care physicians on rates of diagnostic tests ordered, referrals and patient outcomes (satisfaction, malpractice, emergency visits). No studies reported on the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.ConclusionThis review of peer-reviewed literature combined with advisory group interpretation suggests the introduction of PAs into primary care may maintain the quality of referrals and diagnostic tests needed to support cancer diagnosis. It also highlights the lack of research on several aspects of PAs' roles, including outcomes of the diagnostic process.
| S-EPMC8254243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues.MethodsPubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors.ResultsFrom 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.
| S-EPMC5975519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospitalizations for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions are an important indicator of health system equity and performance. Chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions refer to chronic diseases that can be managed in primary care settings, including angina, asthma, and diabetes, with hospitalizations for these conditions considered potentially avoidable with adequate primary care interventions. Socioeconomic inequities in the risk of hospitalization have been observed in several health systems globally. While there are multiple studies examining the association between socioeconomic status and hospitalizations for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions, these studies have not been systematically reviewed. The objective of this study is to systematically identify and describe socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalizations for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions amongst adult populations in economically developed countries reported in high-quality observational studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS:Peer-reviewed literature was searched in six health and social science databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, ASSIA, and IBSS using search terms for hospitalization, socioeconomic status, and chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Study titles and abstracts were first screened followed by full-text review according to the following eligibility criteria: 1) Study outcome is hospitalization for selected chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions; 2) Primary exposure is individual- or area-level socioeconomic status; 3) Study population has a mean age ± 1 SD < 75 years of age; 4) Study setting is economically developed countries; and 5) Study type is observational. Relevant data was then extracted, and studies were critically appraised using appropriate tools from The Joanna Briggs Institute. Results were narratively synthesized according to socioeconomic constructs and type of adjustment (minimally versus fully adjusted). RESULTS:Of the 15,857 unique peer-reviewed studies identified, 31 studies met the eligibility criteria and were of sufficient quality for inclusion. Socioeconomic constructs and hospitalization outcomes varied across studies. However, despite this heterogeneity, a robust and consistent association between lower levels of socioeconomic status and higher risk of hospitalizations for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions was observed. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review is the first to comprehensively identify and analyze literature on the relationship between SES and hospitalizations for chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions, considering both aggregate and condition-specific outcomes that are common to several international health systems. The evidence consistently demonstrates that lower socioeconomic status is a risk factor for hospitalization across global settings. Effective health and social interventions are needed to reduce these inequities and ensure fair and adequate care across socioeconomic groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018088727.
| S-EPMC7197160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims and objectiveSubstituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting.MethodThe systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible.ResultsA total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers.ConclusionsDespite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design.
| S-EPMC6675042 | biostudies-literature