Search

Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the non-medical factors that impact health. Although geographical measures of deprivation are used, individual measures of social risk could identify those most at risk and generate more personalised care and targeted referrals to community resources. We know SDOH are important to health care, but it is not yet known whether their collection via the electronic health record (EHR) is acceptable and useful from the patient perspective. Aim: To synthesise relevant literature to explore patient perspectives on integrating information about SDOH into primary care EHRs, and the opportunities and challenges of its implementation in a general practice setting. Design & setting: Systematic review of primary care-based qualitative and mixed-method studies using thematic framework analysis. Method: Key databases were searched for articles reporting patient perspectives of SDOH collection within the primary care EHR. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies written in English were included. A framework analysis was conducted to identify themes. Results: From 14 included studies, the following five main themes were identified: rationale for SDOH screening and the anticipated outcomes; impact of the provider-patient relationship on patient perceptions; data, which included privacy concerns; screening process and referral; and recommendations for future research. Conclusion: Integration of information on SDOH into the EHR appears acceptable to patients. This review has added to the discussion of whether and how to implement SDOH screening and referral programmes into UK primary care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racism in the healthcare system has become a burgeoning focus in health policy-making and research. Existing research has shown both interpersonal and structural forms of racism limiting access to quality healthcare for racialised healthcare users. Nevertheless, little is known about the specifics of racism in the inpatient sector, specifically hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to map the evidence on racial discrimination experienced by people receiving treatment in inpatient settings (hospitals and rehabilitation facilities) or their caregivers in high-income countries, focusing specifically on whether intersectional axes of discrimination have been taken into account when describing these experiences. Methods: Based on the conceptual framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, this scoping review surveyed existing research on racism and racial discrimination in inpatient care in high-income countries published between 2013 and 2023. The software Rayyan was used to support the screening process while MAXQDA was used for thematic coding. Results: Forty-seven articles were included in this review. Specifics of the inpatient sector included different hospitalisation, admission and referral rates within and across hospitals; the threat of racial discrimination from other healthcare users; and the spatial segregation of healthcare users according to ethnic, religious or racialised criteria. While most articles described some interactions between race and other social categories in the sample composition, the framework of intersectionality was rarely considered explicitly during analysis. Discussion: While the USA continue to predominate in discussions, other high-income countries including Canada, Australia and the UK also examine racism in their own healthcare systems. Absent from the literature are studies from a wider range of European countries as well as of racialised and disadvantaged groups other than refugees or recent immigrants. Research in this area would also benefit from an engagement with approaches to intersectionality in public health to produce a more nuanced understanding of the interactions of racism with other axes of discrimination. As inpatient care exhibits a range of specific structures, future research and policy-making ought to consider these specifics to develop targeted interventions, including training for non-clinical staff and robust, transparent and accessible complaint procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]