How general practitioners perceive access needs of vulnerable patients and act to address these needs: a mixed-methods study in south-east Melbourne, Australia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective The aim of this study was to understand primary health care (PHC) access barriers for vulnerable people living in south-east Melbourne from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs) who work in the area and to outline strategies that GPs have used to address these barriers. Methods A convergent mixed-methods design was used. Quantitative surveys were conducted with practice managers and GPs, and semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with GPs. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Results Each of the vulnerable groups frequently seen by GPs in south-east Melbourne is thought to encounter access barriers in one or more access domains. GPs reported: (1) improving transparency, outreach and information on available treatments to address limited health literacy; (2) using culturally sensitive and language-speaking staff to overcome cultural stereotypes; (3) making practice-level arrangements to overcome limited mobility and social isolation; (4) bulk billing and helping find affordable services to overcome financial hardship; and (5) building trusting relationships with vulnerable patients to improve their engagement with treatment. Conclusion GPs understand the nature of access barriers for local vulnerable groups and have the potential to improve equitable access to primary health care. GPs need support in the on-going application and further development of strategies to accommodate access needs of vulnerable patients. What is known about the topic? Access to primary health care (PHC) is integral to reducing gaps in health outcomes for vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups often encounter challenges in accessing PHC, and GPs have the potential to improve PHC access. What does this paper add? GPs thought that the vulnerable patients they frequently treat encounter barriers pertaining to both patient access abilities and service accessibility. They reported addressing these barriers by improving transparency, outreach and information on available treatments; using culturally sensitive and multilingual staff; making practice-level arrangements to overcome limited mobility and social isolation; bulk billing and helping find affordable services; and building trusting relationships with vulnerable patients. What are the implications for practitioners? Understanding the nature of access barriers for local vulnerable groups and information on strategies used by GPs allows for the further development of PHC access strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».