Cited by 25Patient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Quality and SatisfactionPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Do we all agree what “good health care” looks like? Views from those who are “seldom heard” in health research, policy and service improvement

Open access
Ryan, Sara, Hislop, Jenny, Ziebland, Sue·2017·Health Expectations

Abstract

Context: The aim of this study was to ask whether there are shared ideas about what good health care looks like that apply across different populations and conditions. Do priorities among “seldom heard” groups differ from mainstream views and, if so, how might we understand these differences? Design: Focus groups were recruited with the help of our study patient representatives. Participants discussed and prioritized a set of eight “core components” of good care. We recorded and transcribed the data for thematic analysis. Setting and participants: We recruited people who are seldom heard in health and policy research for separate focus group discussions (one each with illegal drug users, Irish Travellers, migrant workers, young men and learning disabled people). We also ran a reference group of educated, older adults and an online group with people with long‐term conditions. Results: There were few differences in what participants thought was important in health care but considerable differences in their expectations that they might personally receive good care. Differences related to participants' previous experiences. The drug users group reported particularly poor experiences and low expectations of good care. Discussion: Differences in what is regarded as an entitlement or privilege in health care underline the persistence of structural and relational differences in how services are experienced. While we can be reassured that core aspects of care are similarly prioritized across different patient groups, including those who are seldom heard, a more intractable challenge remains: how to provide equitable health care for marginalized groups in an unequal society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12528

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ryan, S., Hislop, J., & Ziebland, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences University of Oxford Oxford UK
Corresponding author
Ryan, Sara
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-03
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
878-885
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2580978139
Cited by
25
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (10‐1011‐19)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Quality and Satisfaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
patient perspectives, patient representatives, health care expectations, drug users, Irish Travellers, migrant workers, young men, learning disabilities, chronic disease, health disparities, marginalized communities, patient experience
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Quality of Health Care, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, Transients and Migrants, Focus Groups, Vulnerable Populations, Qualitative Research, Drug Users, Policy, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review