Search

Scotland is faced with pernicious health inequalities, which stem from inequalities in living conditions and the societal structures that create them. While action is needed to address the wider structural causes of health inequalities, the role of general practitioners (GPs) merits attention due to health care's potential to mitigate or exacerbate health inequalities. Minimal research, however, has explored how GPs understand the fundamental causes of health inequalities nor how they conceptualise their role in mitigating these. This paper aims to fill this gap using in-depth qualitative interviews with 24 GPs working in some of Scotland's most socio-economically disadvantaged, urban areas. Using Raphael's SDH discourse framework, this paper found clear linkages between GPs' perceptions of their patients, how they defined the 'problem' of health inequalities, and what they thought could be done to tackle them in disadvantaged areas. In general, there was convergence on how interviewees viewed their role in mitigating health inequalities through their work with individual patients. However, greater variation was found when describing the boundaries of their role and how far these extended beyond individual encounters. Specifically, only those GPs fluent in discussing structural causes of health inequalities discussed obligations to change local systems via strengthening community linkages and to influence higher level policies related to the SDH. This suggests that while there is a degree of what Metzl and Hansen deem 'structural competency' amongst some GPs working in disadvantaged areas, the scope remains to deepen this competency more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the United Kingdom, fractures of the cervical dens process in older and/or frail patients are usually managed nonsurgically in a hard collar. However, hard collars can lead to complications and this management approach is now being questioned, with growing interest in maximising patients' short‐term quality‐of‐life. It is vital that patients' perspectives are considered; yet, there is a dearth of literature examining the aspect. To help inform wider decision‐making about use of collar/no collar management of dens fractures in older/frail people, we explored older/frail people's experience of the two management approaches and how they affected their perceived quality‐of‐life. Methods: We interviewed older and/or frail adults with a recent dens fracture (aged ≥65 years or with a clinical frailty score of ≥5) or their caregiver. Participants were recruited from both arms of a clinical trial comparing management using a hard collar for 12 weeks (SM) with early removal of the collar (ERC) and were interviewed following randomisation and again, 12–16 weeks later. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Both participant groups (SM/ERC) reported substantial, negative quality‐of‐life (QoL) experiences, with the fall itself and lack of access to care services and information being frequent major contributory factors. Many negative experiences cut across both participant groups, including pain, fatigue, diminished autonomy and reduced involvement in personally meaningful activities. However, we identified some subtle, yet discernible, ways in which using SM/ERC reinforced or alleviated (negative) QoL impacts, with the perceived benefits/burdens to using SM/ERC varying between different individuals. Conclusion: Study findings can be used to support informed decision‐making about SM/ERC management of dens fractures in older/frail patients. Patient or Public Contribution: Public and patient involvement contributors were involved in the study design, development of interview topic guides and interpretation of study findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]