Search

To investigate practice type and location of native and immigrant general practitioners (GPs); effects of migration status concordance between GPs and patients on experiences of patients in key areas of primary care quality and discrimination. Secondary analysis of GP and patient survey data from QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care), a cross-sectional study of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, performed between 2011 and 2013. We explored practice type and location of native and immigrant GPs and the experiences of native patients and patients with a migration background of communication, continuity, comprehensiveness, accessibility, and discrimination, using multilevel analysis. Concordance was modelled as a cross-level interaction between migration status of GPs and patients. Percentages of immigrant GPs varied widely. In Europe, this was highest in England and Luxemburg (40% of GPs born abroad) and lowest in Bulgaria and Romania (1%). The practice population of immigrant GPs more often included an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities. There were no differences in main effects of patient experiences following a visit to an immigrant or native GP, in four core areas of primary care or in discrimination. However, people from first-generation migrant background more often experienced discrimination, in particular when visiting a native GP. Patient experiences did not vary with GPs' migration status. Although experience of discrimination was uncommon, first-generation migrant patients experienced more discrimination. Primary care should provide non-discriminatory care, through GP awareness of unconscious bias and training to address this. There were large differences in percentage of migrant GPs between countries. Migrant GPs' practices had an above average proportion of people from ethnic minorities. In general, patients' experienced discrimination from GPs and practice staff was low, but first-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination. First-generation migrant patients more often experienced discrimination when they visited a native GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]