Search

Primary care is at the forefront of healthcare delivery. It is the site of disease prevention and health management and serves as the bridge between communities and the health care system As ethnographers of primary care, in this article we discuss what is gained by situating anthropological inquiry within primary care. We articulate how anthropologists can contribute to a better understanding of the issues that emerge in primary care. We provide a review of anthropological work in primary care and offer empirical data from two ethnographic case studies based in the United States, one focused on social risk screening in primary care and the other examining the diagnosis and care of people with dementia in primary care. Through these cases, we demonstrate how research of and within primary care can open important avenues for the study of the multidimensionality of primary care. This multidimensionality is apparent in the ways the medical field addresses the social and structural experiences of patients, scope of practice and disciplinary boundaries, and the intersection of ordinary and extraordinary medicine that emerge in the care of patients in primary care.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'X: standing up for diversity, equity and inclusion', authors address the following themes: 'The power of diversity-why inclusivity is essential to equity in healthcare', 'Medical education for whom?', 'Growing a diverse and inclusive workforce', 'Therapeutic judo-an inclusive approach to patient care', 'Global family medicine-seeing the world "upside down"', 'The inverse care law', 'Social determinants of health as a lens for care', 'Why family physicians should care about human rights' and 'Toward health equity-the opportunome'. May the essays that follow inspire readers to promote change.

BackgroundOver five million people in the USA miss or delay medical care because of a lack of transportation. Transportation barriers are especially relevant to Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan enrollees, who are more likely to live with multiple chronic conditions and experience mobility challenges. Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) helps to address transportation gaps by providing rides to and from routine medical care (for example, medical appointments, laboratory tests, and pharmacy visits) and has been added as a supplemental benefit to some MA health plans.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize MA enrollees' experiences with supplemental NEMT benefits.DesignQualitative interviews focused on participants' experiences with existing NEMT benefits, transportation, and mobility.ParticipantsTwenty-one MA enrollees who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for ongoing transportation benefits through 2021.ApproachUsing purposive sampling from a list of eligible participants, we recruited individuals who used their MA NEMT benefit in 2019 and who remained eligible for benefit-covered transportation services through 2021.Key resultsParticipants considered NEMT an essential service, particularly because these services helped them decrease social isolation, reduce financial insecurity, and manage their own medical needs. Navigating logistical challenges associated with arranging NEMT services required participants to commit considerable time and energy and limited the effectiveness and reliability of NEMT.ConclusionParticipants described NEMT as a valued service essential to their ability to access health care. They suggested ways to increase service flexibility and reliability that could inform future NEMT policy and practice. As health systems and payers learn how to best address social risks, particularly as the US population ages, our findings underscore the importance of NEMT services and highlight opportunities to advance comprehensive transportation solutions for MA participants.

BackgroundPrimary care practices are responding to calls to incorporate patients' social risk factors, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity, into clinical care. Healthcare likely relies on the expertise and resources of community-based organizations to improve patients' social conditions, yet little is known about the referral process.ObjectiveTo characterize referrals to community-based organizations by primary care practices.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with healthcare administrators responsible for social care efforts in their organization.ParticipantsAdministrators at 50 diverse US healthcare organizations with efforts to address patients' social risks.Main measuresApproaches used in primary care to implement social needs referral to community-based organizations.ResultsInterviewed administrators reported that social needs referrals were an essential element in their social care activities. Administrators described the ideal referral programs as placing limited burden on care teams, providing patients with customized referrals, and facilitating closed-loop referrals. We identified three key challenges organizations experience when trying to implement the ideal referrals program: (1) developing and maintaining resources lists; (2) aligning referrals with patient needs; and (3) measuring the efficacy of referrals. Collectively, these challenges led to organizations relying on staff to manually develop and update resource lists and, in most cases, provide patients with generic referrals. Administrators not only hoped that referral platforms may help overcome some of these barriers, but also reported implementation challenges with platforms including inconsistent buy-in and use across staff; integration with electronic health records; management and prioritization of resources; and alignment with other organizations in their market.Conclusion and relevanceReferrals to community-based organizations were used in primary care to improve patients' social conditions, but despite strong motivations, interviewees reported challenges providing tailored and up-to-date information to patients.

IntroductionThe American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have proposed adjusting hypertension-related care quality measures by excluding patients with economic/access issues from the denominator of rate calculations. No research to date has explored the methods to operationalize this recommendation or how to measure economic/access issues. This study applied and compared different approaches to populating these denominator exceptions.MethodsElectronic health record data from 2019 were used in 2021 to calculate hypertension control rates in 84 community health centers. A total of 10 different indicators of patient economic/access barriers to care were used as denominator exclusions to calculate and then compare adjusted quality measure performance. Data came from a nonprofit health center‒controlled network that hosts a shared electronic health record for community health centers located in 22 states.ResultsA total of 5 of 10 measures yielded an increase in adjusted hypertension control rates in ≥50% of clinics (average rate increases of 0.7-3.71 percentage points). A total of 3 of 10 measures yielded a decrease in adjusted hypertension control rates in >50% of clinics (average rate decreases of 1.33-13.82 percentage points). A total of 5 measures resulted in excluding >50% of the clinic's patient population from quality measure assessments.ConclusionsChanges in clinic-level hypertension control rates after adjustment differed depending on the measure of economic/access issue. Regardless of the exclusion method, changes between baseline and adjusted rates were small. Removing community health center patients experiencing economic/access barriers from a hypertension control quality measure resulted in excluding a large proportion of patients, raising concerns about whether this calculation can be a meaningful measure of clinical performance.

Anthropologists have critically examined a range of reforms from education and land to finance and health. Yet the predominant way of looking at reforms has been through a lens focused on neoliberal governance. For example, prior studies of health reforms focus on insurance, financing, and access to care. Yet, seeing reform in this way fails to attend to other types of cultural work at play when calling a policy or law a reform. In this paper, we draw on ethnographic research on health policy reforms in Israel and Bolivia to examine the concept of reform and the work it does within national movements. We argue that while the language of reform often signals change or novelty, reforms also carry forward historical continuities and reifications of the past. By delving into the past and its relationship with ongoing health reforms, we attend to how reforms can reinforce and maintain health inequities in some cases, while creating a national language for new possibilities in others. Reform, as we will discuss in this paper, is not only about political ideology, neoliberal governance, or on-the-ground policy implementation, but centrally it is about representations of aspirations, and about crafting relationships between past, present, and future.

Purpose of reviewAn expanding body of research documents associations between socioeconomic circumstances and health outcomes, which has led health care institutions to invest in new activities to identify and address patients' social circumstances in the context of care delivery. Despite growing national investment in these "social care" initiatives, the extent to which social care activities are routinely incorporated into care for patients with type II diabetes mellitus (T2D), specifically, is unknown. We conducted a scoping review of existing T2D treatment and management guidelines to explore whether and how these guidelines incorporate recommendations that reflect social care practice categories.Recent findingsWe applied search terms to locate all T2D treatment and management guidelines for adults published in the US from 1977 to 2021. The search captured 158 national guidelines. We subsequently applied the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine framework to search each guideline for recommendations related to five social care activities: Awareness, Adjustment, Assistance, Advocacy, and Alignment. The majority of guidelines (122; 77%) did not recommend any social care activities. The remainder (36; 23%) referred to one or more social care activities. In the guidelines that referred to at least one type of social care activity, adjustments to medical treatment based on social risk were most common [34/36 (94%)]. Recommended adjustments included decreasing medication costs to accommodate financial strain, changing literacy level or language of handouts, and providing virtual visits to accommodate transportation insecurity. Ensuring that practice guidelines more consistently reflect social care best practices may improve outcomes for patients living with T2D.

ObjectivesIn 2000, the United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for medication abortion. In this article, we explore how the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) criteria for mifepristone specifically impede family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion in primary care settings.Study designWe conducted 56 qualitative interviews with a national sample of family physicians across the US who were not opposed to abortion. We examined how the REMS criteria for mifepristone impact family physicians' ability to provide medication abortion.ResultsOf the 56 interviews conducted, 23 participants (41%) raised the REMS criteria as a barrier to providing medication abortion in primary care. These participants reported the REMS added a layer of bureaucratic complexity that made it difficult for family physicians to navigate, even when trained, to provide abortion care. These family physicians described 2 predominant ways the REMS impede their ability to provide medication abortion: (1) The REMS require substantial involvement of clinic administration, who can be unsupportive; (2) The complexity of navigating the REMS results in physicians and clinic administration in primary care viewing medication abortion as not worth the effort, since it is only a small component of services offered in primary care.ConclusionRemoving the REMS could simplify integration of medication abortion into primary care, which could meet patient preferences, improve access, and reduce abortion stigma. The FDA's revised REMS criteria may ease administrative burden but will likely maintain key barriers to integrating medication abortion into family physicians' practice.ImplicationsOur study highlights that the REMS criteria are barriers to family physicians' ability to integrate medication abortion into their primary care practices. The FDA's removal of in person dispensing criteria may provide some impetus for trained family physicians to integrate medication abortion into their scope of practice but the revised REMS criteria maintain key barriers to broader adoption.

BackgroundPatient-level and community-level social and economic conditions impact hypertension risk and control. We examined adult hypertension management guidelines to explore whether and how existing guidelines refer to social care activities.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore how hypertension guidelines reference social care activities.Research designA systematic scoping review of clinical guidelines for adult hypertension management. We employed a PubMed search strategy to identify all hypertension guidelines published in the United States between 1977 and 2019. We reviewed all titles to identify the most updated versions focused on nonpregnant adults with hypertension. We extracted instances where guidelines referred to social determinants of health (SDH) or social care activities. The primary outcome was how guidelines covered social care activities, defined using a framework adapted from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).ResultsSearch terms yielded 126 guidelines. Thirty-six guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 72% (26/36) recommended social care activities as part of hypertension management; 58% recommended clinicians change clinical practice based on social risk information. These recommendations often lacked specific guidance around how to directly address social risk factors or reduce the impact of these risks on hypertension management. When guidelines referred to specific social factors, patient financial security was the most common. Over time, hypertension guidelines have included more references to SDH.ConclusionInformation about SDH is included in many hypertension guidelines, but few guidelines provide clear guidance for clinicians or health systems on how to identify and address social risk factors in the context of care delivery.

BackgroundCisgender women in the United States use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention at lower rates relative to other groups. Advocacy groups and patients identify family planning clinics as the preferred sites to lead PrEP implementation for women in the United States. However, limited qualitative exploration exists of U.S. family planning practitioners' attitudes toward integrating PrEP into their work.MethodsWe conducted qualitative focus groups with a convenience sample of family planning clinicians, counselors, and clinic managers to explore barriers and facilitators to PrEP provision in U.S. family planning clinics.ResultsWe conducted six focus groups (total participants = 37) with respondents who worked in family planning clinics in San Francisco, California; Kansas City, Missouri; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Key themes emerged highlighting how PrEP at times runs contrary to other family planning agendas, including efficient clinic visits, condom promotion, and long-acting reversible contraception counseling. Throughout these discussions, participants expressed discomfort with HIV vulnerabilities rooted in social and structural determinants of health.ConclusionsFindings suggest that those seeking to implement PrEP for U.S. cisgender women may benefit from exploring 1) how to integrate patient/provider conversations about the structural determinants of health and their relationship to HIV and other sexual and reproductive health outcomes and 2) how to foster person-centered prevention conversations in the context of busy family planning visits.

BackgroundCisgender women in the United States use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention at lower rates relative to other groups. Advocacy groups and patients identify family planning clinics as the preferred sites to lead PrEP implementation for women in the United States. However, limited qualitative exploration exists of U.S. family planning practitioners' attitudes toward integrating PrEP into their work.MethodsWe conducted qualitative focus groups with a convenience sample of family planning clinicians, counselors, and clinic managers to explore barriers and facilitators to PrEP provision in U.S. family planning clinics.ResultsWe conducted six focus groups (total participants = 37) with respondents who worked in family planning clinics in San Francisco, California; Kansas City, Missouri; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Key themes emerged highlighting how PrEP at times runs contrary to other family planning agendas, including efficient clinic visits, condom promotion, and long-acting reversible contraception counseling. Throughout these discussions, participants expressed discomfort with HIV vulnerabilities rooted in social and structural determinants of health.ConclusionsFindings suggest that those seeking to implement PrEP for U.S. cisgender women may benefit from exploring 1) how to integrate patient/provider conversations about the structural determinants of health and their relationship to HIV and other sexual and reproductive health outcomes and 2) how to foster person-centered prevention conversations in the context of busy family planning visits.

Taking Israel's National Health Insurance Law as a point of entry, in this article I probe how notions of equality and citizenship, secularism, and religion become entangled in the experience of Negev/Naqab Bedouins, who are Palestinian citizens of Israel. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research, I show how Jewish citizens have come to represent the secular and modern citizens in the region, while Bedouins, although mandated and claimed by policy and providers to be the 'same' and 'equal,' are always already imagined and characterized as other. Universal health care and the daily manner in which biomedicine is practiced in southern Israel provides an avenue for examining the Jewish valences medicine carries in southern Israel, Israel's boundaries of inclusion, and the connection between biomedicine and secularism.

Taking Israel's National Health Insurance Law as a point of entry, in this article I probe how notions of equality and citizenship, secularism, and religion become entangled in the experience of Negev/Naqab Bedouins, who are Palestinian citizens of Israel. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research, I show how Jewish citizens have come to represent the secular and modern citizens in the region, while Bedouins, although mandated and claimed by policy and providers to be the 'same' and 'equal,' are always already imagined and characterized as other. Universal health care and the daily manner in which biomedicine is practiced in southern Israel provides an avenue for examining the Jewish valences medicine carries in southern Israel, Israel's boundaries of inclusion, and the connection between biomedicine and secularism.