The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 20 of the 71 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK METHODS: This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. RESULTS: Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. DISCUSSION: By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes the development of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS), an interpretive review method for complex, diverse literatures, illustrated through a synthesis of access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK. Its central substantive output is a synthesising argument in which access is understood through the synthetic construct of candidacy, jointly negotiated between people and health services.
Key findings
- The illustrative CIS of access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people included 119 papers and generated a critique of utilisation as a measure of equity of access, arguing that utilisation studies rest on questionable normative assumptions and difficult-to-measure “need.”
- The core synthetic construct is “candidacy”: eligibility for medical attention and intervention is jointly negotiated between individuals and health services, is dynamic and contingent, and is shaped by identification, navigation, permeability of services, appearances, adjudications, offers, resistance, and operating conditions.
- Access is recast as a dynamic interplay between health services defining appropriate objects of medical attention and people constituting what they understand to be appropriate objects of medical attention.
- Searching generated over 100,000 records at one stage; the sampling frame totalled approximately 1,200 records, and approximately 20 papers were excluded as “fatally flawed.”
Methods
- Design: a reflexive account and development of CIS, sensitised to conventional systematic review methodology but drawing on interpretive synthesis, meta-ethnography, and grounded theory; question formulation, searching, sampling, critique, and analysis were iterative rather than staged.
- Data/sample: literature on access to NHS healthcare in the UK by potentially vulnerable groups defined by funders as children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people; the illustrative synthesis reported here focused on socio-economically disadvantaged people and included 119 papers.
- Analysis: qualitative-style analysis using QSR N5, constant comparison, purposive then theoretical sampling, and generation of a synthesising argument and synthetic constructs; formal quality appraisal was limited, with only papers deemed fatally flawed excluded.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: they make no claim to reproducibility; a different team using the same papers might produce a different theoretical model; later sampling was highly intuitive and guided by emerging theory; only a fraction of all relevant papers was analysed; search transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility are difficult to demonstrate; formal data extraction’s value requires further evaluation; and both the method and model should be evaluated in other contexts.
- Stated by the authors: the evidence that socially disadvantaged people’s candidacy is judged less eligible for some interventions is “not particularly strong.”
- Evident from the text: the illustrative synthesis is UK-focused and centres on socio-economically disadvantaged people, although the authors suggest candidacy is transferable; the approach produces one privileged, authorial reading rather than a reproducible product.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 Own interpretation · 42 No basis given · 21 No full text of the sources · 7 Not checked yet · 6 Partly supported · 5 Own result · 2 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“In general, the use to date of interpretive approaches to synthesis has been confined to the synthesis of qualitative research only [6-8].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Garcia J, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res. 2006, 21: 239-257. 10.1093/her/cyh060. source
- Disputedcites [7] Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A: Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 794-800. 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Key points section says that qualitative synthesis techniques can bring together findings from both quantitative and qualitative views studies. The Methods used in 'views' studies section also describes studies that quantified young people's views. This contradicts the claim that interpretive synthesis had been confined to qualitative research only; the supplied copy gives no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Disputedcites [8] Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1010-1012. 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s “Synthesis 3: bringing the two sets of studies together” describes using findings from an interpretive qualitative synthesis to combine evidence from qualitative studies and controlled trials. The Discussion calls this integration a new review method, contrary to the unqualified claim that such approaches had been confined to synthesising qualitative research only. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“A key practical resource that impacts on the ability to seek care for the socio-economically disadvantaged, for example, is transport [44,47,48].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Navigation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [44] Tod A, Read C, Lacey A, Abbott J: Barriers to uptake of services for coronary heart disease: qualitative study. BMJ. 2001, 323: 214-217. 10.1136/bmj.323.7306.214. source
The Structural factors section reports that poor transport led participants to delay reporting new or worsening symptoms, and that distance combined with lack of transport delayed access to health care. The Introduction places the study in the South Yorkshire coalfields, where deprived communities had lower referral rates and uptake of services. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] Field K, Briggs D: Socio-economic and locational determinants of accessibility and utilization of primary health-care. Health Soc Care Community. 2001, 9: 294-308. 10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00303.x. source
- Supportedcites [48] Shipman C, Payne F, Dale J, Jessopp L: Patient-perceived benefits of and barriers to using out-of-hours primary care centres. Fam Pract. 2001, 18: 149-155. 10.1093/fampra/18.2.149. source
The Social themes section (p. 151) identifies lack of accessible transport and money for taxis as barriers. The Discussion (pp. 153–154) says transport difficulties can prevent patients from attending out-of-hours centres and that providing transport could improve access for patients with fewer resources. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In addition, the extent to which people feel alienated from the cultural values of health services and their satisfaction with services have important implications for which services they choose to use [41,55].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > The permeability of services
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [41] Richards H, Reid M, Watt C: Socioeconomic variations in responses to chest pain: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002, 324: 1308-1310. 10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1308. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experience of illness section links negative experiences, low expectations and social alignment with patients’ responses to care. The Discussion links past health-care experiences to decisions that may affect uptake of cardiology services. The paper examines whether people present with chest pain, not how alienation from health-service values or satisfaction determines which services they choose. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] Rogers A, Hassell K, Nicolas G: Demanding patients? Analysing the use of primary care. 1999, Buckingham: Open University Press
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Appointments systems, for example, are a threat to permeability by socio-economically disadvantaged people because they require resources and competencies (including stable addresses, being able to read, and being able to present in particular places at particular times [33,50,54]”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > The permeability of services
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] Martin R, Sterne J: Social and economic variation in general practice consultation rates amongst men aged 16–39. Health Statistics Quarterly. 2001, 09: 29-36.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [50] George A, Rubin G: Non-attendance in general practice: A systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 178-184. 10.1093/fampra/20.2.178. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites [54] van Cleemput P: Health care needs of travellers. Arch Dis Child. 2000, 82: 32-37. 10.1136/adc.82.1.32. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Services that are less permeable tend to have high levels of default by socio-economically disadvantaged people [50-53].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > The permeability of services
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [50] George A, Rubin G: Non-attendance in general practice: A systematic review and its implications for access to primary health care. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 178-184. 10.1093/fampra/20.2.178. source
The Appointment systems section says that barriers to access can increase non-attendance and that appointment systems may be difficult for people in deprived or low-socioeconomic-class communities. The Epidemiology of missed appointments section also reports that patients who miss appointments tend to come from lower socioeconomic classes or deprived areas. Together, these support the claim's qualified paraphrase; the copy does not provide page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [51] McClure R, Newell S, Edwards S: Patient characteristics affecting attendance at general outpatient clinics. Arch Dis Child. 1996, 74: 121-125. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion report higher non-attendance among children from lower social classes and poorer housing, and link attendance to travel and appointment arrangements. The paper studies general paediatric outpatient clinics, however; it does not compare services by how permeable they are or establish that less permeable services generally have higher default rates. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [52] Macleod U, Ross S, Twelves C, George W, Gillis C, Watt G: Primary and secondary care management of women with early breast cancer from affluent and deprived areas: retrospective review of hospital and general practice records. BMJ. 2000, 320: 1442-1445. 10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1442. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Follow up section reports that women from deprived areas were more likely to miss breast-cancer clinic appointments (12% versus 4%) and suggests that ease of access to hospital may be a factor. It does not assess whether the service was ‘less permeable’ or establish a general tendency across services. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Sharp D, Hamilton W: Non-attendance at general practices and outpatient clinics. BMJ. 2002, 323: 1081-1082. 10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1081. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Crucial to the local production of candidacy is the perceived or actual availability and suitability of resources to address that candidacy [60,63].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Operating conditions and the local production of candidacy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [60] May C, Allison G, Chapple A, Chew-Graham C, Dixon C, Gask L, Graham R, Rogers A, Roland M: Framing the doctor-patient relationship in chronic illness: a comparative study of general practitioners' accounts. Sociol Health Illn. 2004, 26: 135-158. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00384.x. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion says doctors judge patients’ problems in light of the routinely available means of solving them, and links empathy to a perceived successful exit from the consultation. The paper supports the importance of available and suitable responses in GP consultations, but does not frame this as a finding about the local production of candidacy more generally. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Supportedcites [63] Fuat A, Hungin A, Murphy J: Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure in primary care: qualitative study. BMJ. 2003, 326: 196-200. 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.196. source
In “Influences of personal preference and local organisational factors” (page not specified), the study says local diagnostic services, resources and specialist availability shaped GPs’ decisions about patients with suspected heart failure. It also reports that waiting lists and the suitability of available consultants influenced referral choices. The citing sentence uses “candidacy” as its own framing of that finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Other practical resources that may impact on the ability of disadvantaged groups to negotiate health services include more rigid patterns of working life [47].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Navigation
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] Field K, Briggs D: Socio-economic and locational determinants of accessibility and utilization of primary health-care. Health Soc Care Community. 2001, 9: 294-308. 10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00303.x. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people in the UK included 119 papers.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Findings: access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The groups defined by the funders (children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people) are potentially vulnerable groups for access to NHS healthcare.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis suggests that people in more deprived circumstances are likely to manage health and to recognise candidacy as a series of crises.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Identification of candidacy
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among more deprived groups, there is a tendency to seek help in response to specific events that are seen as warranting candidacy.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Identification of candidacy
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 51
- Probably not a substantial claim. 92
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Methods for including qualitative and quantitative evidence in systematic reviews developed by the EPPI Centre at the Institute of Education, London, have involved refinements and extensions of conventional systematic review methodology [6-8], and have limited their application of interpretive techniques to synthesis of qualitative evidence.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Garcia J, Oliver S, Oakley A: Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res. 2006, 21: 239-257. 10.1093/her/cyh060. source
- Disputedcites [7] Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, Oakley A: Applying systematic review methods to studies of people's views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 794-800. 10.1136/jech.2003.014829. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Supportedcites [8] Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1010-1012. 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010. source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We piloted the use of a highly structured search strategy using protocol-driven searches across a range of electronic databases but, like Greenhalgh and Peacock [17] found that was this unsatisfactory.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Searching the literature
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] Greenhalgh T, Peacock R: Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005, 331: 1064-1065. 10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68. source
The Method section says Greenhalgh and Peacock used a protocol-driven strategy that included electronic searches of 15 databases. Their Discussion concludes that reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on predefined, protocol-driven searches, however many databases are searched. This supports the citing authors’ comparison, without attributing their own pilot to Greenhalgh and Peacock. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“How or whether to appraise papers for inclusion in an interpretive reviews has received a great deal of attention, but there is little sign of an emergent consensus [22].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Determination of quality
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [22] Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA: The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004, 13: 223-225. 10.1136/qshc.2003.008714. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says that proposals for appraising qualitative research show few signs of consensus, and the introduction discusses disagreement over whether quality criteria should exist. The introduction also says quality assessments are needed for reviews. The paper does not specifically address appraisal for inclusion in interpretive reviews, so the claim is more specific than the source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is significant evidence of lower use of preventive services among more deprived groups, [33,34] as well as evidence of higher use of accident and emergency facilities, emergency admissions and out-of-hours use [35,35,37,38].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Identification of candidacy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Martin R, Sterne J: Social and economic variation in general practice consultation rates amongst men aged 16–39. Health Statistics Quarterly. 2001, 09: 29-36.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Watt G: The inverse care law today. Lancet. 2002, 360: 252-254. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09466-7. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] Majeed F, Cook D, Hilton S, Poloniecki J, Hagen A: Annual night visiting rates in 129 general practices in one family health services authority: Association with patient and general practice characteristics. Br J Gen Pract. 1995, 45: 531-535.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] Blatchford O, Capewell S, Murray S, Blatchford M: Emergency medical admissions in Glasgow: general practices vary despite adjustment for age, sex, and deprivation. Br J Gen Pract. 1999, 49: 551-554.
- Partly supportedcites [38] Carlisle R, Groom L, Avery A, Boot D, Earwicker S: Relation of out-of-hours activity by general practice and accident and emergency services with deprivation in Nottingham: longitudinal survey. BMJ. 1998, 316: 520-523. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Out of hours activity section reports that higher deprivation scores were associated with higher out-of-hours rates for both general practice and accident and emergency services. The cited paper does not establish higher emergency admissions; the preventive-services claim is attached to different citations. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“May et al's [60] analysis suggests doctors' practices are often exercised through a repertoire of routine judgements about the possibilities presented by individual patients and the routinely available means of solving these.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Adjudications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [60] May C, Allison G, Chapple A, Chew-Graham C, Dixon C, Gask L, Graham R, Rogers A, Roland M: Framing the doctor-patient relationship in chronic illness: a comparative study of general practitioners' accounts. Sociol Health Illn. 2004, 26: 135-158. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00384.x. source
The Conclusion says doctors’ interactional behaviours and communication skills are exercised through contextual experience of types of patients, problems, and disposal options. It explicitly describes this as a repertoire of routine judgements about individual patients’ possibilities and the available means of addressing them. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Referral implies that a GP has identified particular features of candidacy and is seeking to match those to a service that deals with that form of candidacy, but patients can resist being referred [42,63] and can resist offers of medication [64,65].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Offers and resistance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [42] Gardner K, Chapple A: Barriers to referral in patients with angina: qualitative study. BMJ. 1999, 319: 418-421. source
The citation is attached to the claim that patients can resist referral, not to the separate claim about medication. In the Results (page not supplied), a patient says they would decline referral if they thought they were taking a younger person's place; the study also identifies fear of hospitals and tests as a barrier to referral. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [63] Fuat A, Hungin A, Murphy J: Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure in primary care: qualitative study. BMJ. 2003, 326: 196-200. 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.196. source
In “The diagnostic process,” a GP says some patients do not want a second opinion or to go to hospital. In “Concerns about using ACE inhibitors in general practice,” a GP anticipates patients rebelling against taking too many tablets. Together, these passages support resistance to referral and medication. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] Britten N, Stevenson F, Gafaranga J, Barry C, Bradley C: The expression of aversion to medicines in general practice consultations. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 59: 1495-1503. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.019. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [65] Scahfheutle E, Hassell K, Noyce P, Weiss M: Access to medicines: cost as an influence on the views and behaviour of patients. Health Soc Care Community. 2002, 10: 187-195. 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2002.00356.x. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For our project, it was neither possible nor desirable to specify in advance the precise review question, a priori definitions, or categories under which the data could be summarised”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Formulating the review question
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The groups defined by the funders (children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people) are potentially vulnerable groups for access to NHS healthcare.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, searching generated thousands of potentially relevant items – at one stage over 100,000 records.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Searching the literature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sampling frame eventually totalled approximately 1,200 records.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Searching the literature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Early analytic categories were tentative and contingent, but gradually became firmed up and more highly specified as our analysis continued.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Findings: access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It further involved the generation of a synthesising argument that has the synthetic construct of candidacy at its core.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Findings: access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiences of working with a large sample of papers using multiple methods led us to refine and respecify some of the concepts and techniques of meta-ethnography in order to enable synthesis of a very large and methodologically diverse literature.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practically, however, it proved impossible to conduct this form of data extraction on all documents included in the review, including very large documents.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In effect, therefore, our approach does not make this precise distinction between second and third order constructs.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our synthesis involved a critique of the tendency to use measures of utilisation as a means of assessing the extent to which access to healthcare is equitable.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Findings: access to healthcare by socio-economically disadvantaged people
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis of the evidence, in order to produce a synthesising argument, was similar to that undertaken in primary qualitative research.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting the analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in our review, some methodologically weak papers were important in terms of their theoretical contribution, or in terms of demonstrating the breadth of evidence considered in the construction of particular categories, or in terms of providing a more comprehensive summary of the evidence, while a single strong paper might be pivotal in the development of the synthesis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A small body of recent research has identified what might be called local influences on the production of candidacy, and in our analysis these are hugely important.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Operating conditions and the local production of candidacy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hughes and Griffiths' paper on micro-rationing of healthcare [61], for example, was a key paper in helping to generate the construct of candidacy that later came to unify the themes of our analysis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] Hughes D, Griffiths L: Ruling in and Ruling out: two approaches to the micro-rationing of health care. Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44: 589-599. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00207-9. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conceptual model of access that we developed emphasises candidacy as the core organising construct, and recasts access as highly dynamic and contingent, and subject to constant negotiation.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to the core construct of candidacy, our analysis required the production of a number of other linked synthetic constructs – constructs generated through an attempt to summarise and integrate diverse concepts and data – including “adjudications” and “offers”.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CIS approaches we adopted deferred final definition of the phenomenon of access and the appropriate ways of conceptualising it until our analysis was complete.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our critique of the current literature focused on the inadequacies of studies of utilisation as a guide to explaining inequities in health care.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Candidacy of socially disadvantaged people appears to be at risk of being judged to be less eligible, at least for some types of interventions, although the evidence that this happens is not particularly strong.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Adjudications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The methods for review that we developed in this project (Table 2) built on conventional systematic review methodology in their sensitivity to the need for attentiveness to a range of methodological processes.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was also possible to link existing “second order” constructs, for example relating to help-seeking as the identification of candidacy by patients, into the synthesising argument, and making these work as synthesising constructs.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final version of the conceptual model of access to healthcare that we eventually developed did not emerge until quite late in the review process, and much of the later sampling was directed at testing and purposively challenging the theory as we began to develop it.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we felt it important that we produced an interpretation of the evidence that could produce new insights and fresh ways of understanding the phenomenon of access, and that the “critical voice” of our interpretation was maintained throughout the analysis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recognize that we have analyzed and synthesized only a fraction of all relevant papers in the area of access to healthcare by vulnerable groups.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services.”
- Also stated in: § Access to healthcare · plain
“Candidacy is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § Access to healthcare · plain
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Meta-ethnography, an approach in which there has been recent significant activity and innovation, has similarly been used solely to synthesise qualitative studies, and has typically been used only with small samples [9-11].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R: Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 133-155. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.063. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, et al: Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 56: 671-684. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R: Using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002, 7: 209-215. 10.1258/135581902320432732. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpretive reviews might construct the field to be known rather differently, seeing the boundaries as more diffuse and ill-defined, as potentially overlapping with other fields, and as shifting as the review progresses.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Sampling
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Their defining characteristics are a focus on summarising data, and an assumption that the concepts (or variables) under which those data are to be summarised are largely secure and well specified.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interpretive reviews, by contrast, see the essential tasks of synthesis as involving both induction and interpretation.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, there is a need to limit the number of papers to be included in an interpretive synthesis not least for practical reasons, including the time available.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Sampling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The product of the synthesis is not aggregations of data, but theory grounded in the studies included in the review.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional systematic review methodology limits the number of papers to be included in a review by having tightly specified inclusion criteria for papers.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Sampling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sampling is also warranted theoretically, in that the focus in interpretive synthesis is on the development of concepts and theory rather than on exhaustive summary of all data.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Sampling
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Aggregative reviews are concerned with assembling and pooling data, may use techniques such as meta-analysis, and require a basic comparability between phenomena so that the data can be aggregated for analysis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A: Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10: 45-53. 10.1258/1355819052801804. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few approaches have attempted to apply an interpretive approach to the whole corpus of evidence (regardless of study type) included in a review, and few have treated the literature they examine as itself an object of scrutiny”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although there is a tendency at present to conduct interpretive synthesis only of qualitative studies, it should in principle be possible and indeed desirable to conduct interpretive syntheses of all forms of evidence, since theory-building need not be based only on one form of evidence.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A tightly focused research question allows the parameters of the review to be identified and the study selection criteria to be defined in advance, and in turn limits the amount of evidence required to address the review question.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Formulating the review question
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2001, York: NHS CRD
- Not matchedcites [13] Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JP: Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.2. 2004, The Cochrane Library, 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A number of authors [18-20] suggest drawing on the sampling techniques of primary qualitative research, including principles of theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation, when conducting a synthesis of qualitative literature.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Schreiber RCD, Stern P: Qualitative meta-analysis. In: Completing a qualitative project: details and dialogue. Edited by: Morse JM. 1997, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
- Not checked yetcites [19] Booth A: Cochrane or cock-eyed? How shoul we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research?. Proceedings of the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance. 2001, Coventry University, May 14 2001
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Paterson B, Thorne S, C C, Jillings C: Meta-study of qualitative health research. 2001, Thousand Oaks: Sage source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services.”
- Also stated in: § Access to healthcare · plain
“Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § Access to healthcare · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The approach we used to further specify the review question was highly iterative, modifying the question in response to search results and findings from retrieved items.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Formulating the review question
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An interpretive review will therefore avoid specifying concepts in advance of the synthesis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Background > Aggregative and interpretive reviews
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, credibility depends on the quality of the research, its currency, and the robustness of its theoretical base.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature suggests that different groups have identifiable patterns of use of services, but the significance of these is often difficult to interpret.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Critique of utilisation as a measure of access
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accomplishing access to healthcare requires considerable work on the part of users, and the amount, difficulty, and complexity of that work may operate as barriers to receipt of care.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Candidacy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Candidacy functions as a synthetic construct because it is the product of the transformation of the evidence into a new conceptual form.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Candidacy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, people must be aware of the services on offer, and there has been persistent concern that more deprived people may lack awareness of some services [45,46].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Navigation
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [45] Anderson E, Petersen S, Wailoo M: Health concerns and needs of traveller families. Health Visitor. 1997, 70: 148-150.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked yetcites [46] House of Commons Health Committee: Inequalities in access to maternity services. Eighth report of session 2002–2003. 2003, London: Stationery Office
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A key feature of this process that distinguishes it from some other current approaches to interpretive synthesis (and indeed of much primary qualitative research) was its aim of being critical: its questioning of the ways in which the literature had constructed the problematics of access, the nature of the assumptions on which it drew, and what has influenced its choice of proposed solutions.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting the analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The social patterning of perceptions of health and health services, and a lack of alignment between the priorities and competencies of disadvantaged people and the organisation of health services, conspire to create vulnerabilities.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Candidacy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to emphasise, however, that CIS is an approach to review and is not solely a method for synthesis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is important to note that, as with any qualitative analysis, full transparency is not possible because of the creative, interpretive processes involved.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting the analysis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few published meta-ethnographies have in fact reported a separate refutational synthesis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But more generally, a critical interpretive synthesis is critical in the broader sense of critique rather than this more limited sense of critical appraisal, in which each study is judged against the standards of its type.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Critique may involve identification of the research traditions or meta-narratives that have guided particular fields of research [27] as well as critical analysis of particular forms of discourses.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Kyriakidou O, Macfarlane F, Peacock R: A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery. 2004, London: NHS SDO Programme
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This argument integrates evidence from across the studies in the review into a coherent theoretical framework comprising a network of constructs and the relationships between them.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before our review, RTA had previously only been used for synthesising interpretive research, not a large and diverse body of literature, so this may be one reason why it was unsuccessful for our purposes.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the appropriate way of conceptualising the output of an LOA synthesis is as a synthesising argument.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis suggested that a focus instead on candidacy, a synthetic construct that we generated during the course of our analysis, would demonstrate the vulnerabilities associated with socio-economic disadvantage, emphasise the highly dynamic, multi-dimensional and contingent character of access, and allow a more insightful interpretation of the evidence on receipt of healthcare.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Critique of utilisation as a measure of access
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have defined candidacy as follows: candidacy describes the ways in which people's eligibility for medical attention and intervention is jointly negotiated between individuals and health services.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Candidacy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Synthetic constructs are grounded in the evidence, but result from an interpretation of the whole of that evidence, and allow the possibility of several disparate aspects of a phenomenon being unified in a more useful and explanatory way.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its aim is therefore to treat the literature as warranting critical scrutiny in its own right.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting an interpretive synthesis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“though some recent work has suggested that social class variables are generally insignificant in explaining health service use [30]”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Critique of utilisation as a measure of access
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Sutton M, Gravelle H, Leyland A, Morris S, Muirhead M, Noble M, Parkin D, Windmeijer F: Small area study of supply and demand determinants of healthcare resource use and estimation of relative needs for primary care trusts in England. English Department of Health/Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. 2002
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““Access” represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“People in disadvantaged groups are more likely to smoke, to be overweight and to have co-morbidities, and professional perceptions of the cultural and health capital required to convert a unit of health provision into a given unit of health gain may function as barriers to healthcare [34].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Adjudications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Watt G: The inverse care law today. Lancet. 2002, 360: 252-254. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09466-7. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experience suggests that while attention to scientific quality is required, more generally the emphasis should be on critique rather than critical appraisal, and an ongoing critical orientation to the material examined and to emerging theoretical ideas.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Processes of question formulation, searching, selection, data extraction, critique and synthesis are characterised as iterative, interactive, dynamic and recursive rather than as fixed procedures to be accomplished in a pre-defined sequence.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Goddard and Smith [49] summarise evidence suggesting that independent of the severity of the disease, some GPs are more likely to refer the economically active and those with dependants.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Adjudications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] Goddard M, Smith P: Equity of access to health care. 1998, York: University of York
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be much better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Realist synthesis [68], which does include diverse forms of evidence, is oriented towards theory evaluation, in particular by focusing on theories of change.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 21-34. 10.1258/1355819054308530. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is rarely an attempt to reconceptualise the phenomenon of interest, to provide a more sweeping critique of the ways in which the literature in the area have chosen to represent it, or to question the epistemological and normative assumptions of the literature.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Hughes and Griffiths [61] identify, clinical decisions may rest on often implicit social criteria about which patients “ought” to receive care”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Adjudications
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] Hughes D, Griffiths L: Ruling in and Ruling out: two approaches to the micro-rationing of health care. Soc Sci Med. 1997, 44: 589-599. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00207-9. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional systematic review methodology sets great store by the reproducibility of its protocols and findings.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dixon et al [57] and, in the US, Cooper and Roter [58] suggest that middle class people may be more adept at using their “voice” to demand better and extensive services: they may be more articulate, more confident, and more persistent, while people from lower class backgrounds are less verbally active.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Appearances at health services
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57] Dixon A, Le Grand J, Henderson J, Murray R, Poteliakhoff E: Is the NHS equitable? A review of the evidence. London. LSE Health and Social Care. 2003
- Not checked yetcites [58] Cooper L, Roter D: Patient-provider communication: the effect of race and ethnicity on process and outcomes of healthcare. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Edited by: Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. 2003, Washington DC: National Academies Press
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this conceptual model of access to healthcare, health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sword [56] points out that people with low incomes may feel alienated by the power relations that often characterise encounters with professionals.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Appearances at health services
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Sword W: A socio-ecological approach to understanding barriers to prenatal care for women of low income. J Adv Nurs. 1999, 29: 1170-1177. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00986.x. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Demands from health policy-makers and managers for syntheses of evidence that are useful, rigorous and relevant are fuelling interest in the development of methods that can allow the integration of diverse types of evidence [66].”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [66] Sheldon TA: Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005, 10 (Suppl 1): 1-5. 10.1258/1355819054308521. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More deprived people are at risk in these situations: they may be less used to or less able to provide coherent abstracted explanations of need, and may feel intimidated by their social distance from health professionals.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Appearances at health services
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, it emphasises a need for constant reflexivity to inform the emerging theoretical notions, and guides the sampling of articles.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Appearing at health services involves people in asserting a claim to candidacy for medical attention or intervention.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Appearances at health services
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whatever the nature of the claim, making it clearly involves work that requires a set of competencies, including the ability to formulate and articulate the issue for which help is being sought, and the ability to present credibly.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Appearances at health services
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our review focused on the UK, we suggest that the construct of candidacy is transferable, and has useful explanatory value in other contexts.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Access to healthcare
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In treating the literature as an object of scrutiny in its own right, CIS problematises the literature in ways that are quite distinctive from most current approaches to literature reviewing.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to its explicit orientation towards theory generation, perhaps what most distinguishes CIS from conventional systematic review methods is its rejection of a “stage” approach to review.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CIS emphasises the need for theoretical categories to be generated from the available evidence and for those categories to be submitted to rigorous scrutiny as the review progresses.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CIS recognises the need for flexibility in the conduct of review”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Formal data extraction may also be an unnecessarily constraining and burdensome process.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More generally, many current approaches fail to be sufficiently critical, in the sense of offering a critique.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although CIS demands attention to flaws in study design, execution and reporting in our judgements of the quality of individual papers, its critical approach goes beyond standard approaches.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a common strategy in conventional systematic review is to limit the study types to be included; this strategy also might result in only a proportion of the potentially relevant literature being synthesised.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would certainly have been possible to produce an account of the evidence that was more reproducible.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that this methodology offers the potential for insight, vividness, illumination, and reconceptualisation of research questions, particularly in challenging areas such as access to healthcare, and look forward to further evaluations of its application.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Access to healthcare by vulnerable groups is a challenging area for interpretive review.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simply to have produced a thematic summary of what the literature was saying would have run the risk of accepting that the accounts offered in the evidence-base were the only valid way of understanding the phenomenon of access to healthcare by vulnerable groups.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our decision not to commit to a particular view of what access might be and how it should be assessed at the outset of the project was critical to our subsequent development of a more satisfactory understanding of access.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On balance, faced with a large and amorphous body of evidence in an area such as access to healthcare, and given the aims of an interpretive synthesis, we feel that our decision not to limit the focus of the review at the outset, and our subsequent sampling strategies, were well justified.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This dilemma between the “answerable” question and the “meaningful” question has received little attention, but it underpins key tensions between the two ends of the academic/pragmatic systematic review spectrum.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While we have described our methods for sampling as purposive, it is possible that another team using the same approach could have come up with a different sample, because, particularly in the later stages of our review, our sampling was highly intuitive and guided by the emerging theory.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conducting interpretive reviews in challenging areas where there is a large body of diverse evidence demands an approach that can draw on the strengths of conventional systematic review methodology and on the recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Access to healthcare by vulnerable groups is a challenging area for interpretive review.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, such forms of searching and sampling do not lend themselves easily to reproducibility or indeed auditability.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, the production of a synthesizing argument, as an interpretive process, produces one privileged reading of the evidence, and, as the product of an authorial voice, it cannot be defended as an inherently reproducible process or product.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We would suggest, however, that our analysis can be defended on the grounds that it is demonstrably grounded in the evidence; that it is plausible; that it offers insights that are consistent with the available evidence; and that it can generate testable hypotheses and empirically valuable questions for future research.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Discussion > Reflections on the method
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The literature on access to healthcare is large, diverse, and complex.
“Like many areas of healthcare practice and policy, the literature on access to healthcare is large, diverse, and complex.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The groups defined by the funders (children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people) are potentially vulnerable groups for access to NHS healthcare.
“These groups had been defined at the outset by the funders of the project (the UK Department of Health Service Delivery and Organisation R&D Programme) as children, older people, members of minority ethnicities, men/women, and socio-economically disadvantaged people.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups is large, amorphous and complex.
“where there is a large, amorphous and complex body of literature”
The paper relies on this without support.
Access to healthcare by vulnerable groups is a challenging area for interpretive review.
“particularly in challenging areas such as access to healthcare”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Parents in our study felt caught at the margins of miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, which impacted on how they asserted a claim to ‘candidacy’ in accessing health services.13”
From Parents’ experiences of care following the loss of a baby at the margins between miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death: a UK qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“we evaluated the quality of these 32 studies using the modified criteria proposed by Dixon-Woods et al. (2006), and the assessment results are presented in Table 3.”
From Generative AI in Language Education: Bridging Divide and Fostering Inclusivity (2025) · cites this paper as Dixon-Woods et al., 2006
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Finalmente, una lectura completa de estos documentos, junto a una evaluación de calidad basada en criterios de rigor metodológico (adaptado de Dixon-Woods et al., 2006;Codina, 2019), consolidó el corpus final de 25 artículos que constituyen la base de este análisis.”
From Polarización política y afectiva en España: una revisión sistemática exploratoria (2026) · cites this paper as Dixon-Woods et al., 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Methods > Conducting the analysis
“To facilitate the process of identifying patterns, themes, and categories across the large volumes of text-based data in our study, we used QSR N5 software.”
§ Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups > Authors' contributions
“DC and SA managed the searching, maintained the databases and coded material using N6 software.”
Citations
Cites
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-5843 · Cited by 7,043
Capps, L. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.18.2487-b · Cited by 4,558
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308530 · Cited by 3,190
Noblit, G., & Hare, R. (1988) · doi:10.4135/9781412985000 · Cited by 2,723
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,191
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581960501000110 · Cited by 2,132
Self-citationGreenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 · Cited by 2,045
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2001, York: NHS CRD
- Booth A: Cochrane or cock-eyed? How shoul we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research?. Proceedings of the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance. 2001, Coventry University, May 14 2001
- Schutz A: Collected Papers. 1962, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1:
- Sutton M, Gravelle H, Leyland A, Morris S, Muirhead M, Noble M, Parkin D, Windmeijer F: Small area study of supply and demand determinants of healthcare resource use and estimation of relative needs for primary care trusts in England. English Department of Health/Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. 2002
- Cornwell J: Hard Earned Lives. 1984, London: Tavistock
- Anderson E, Petersen S, Wailoo M: Health concerns and needs of traveller families. Health Visitor. 1997, 70: 148-150.
- House of Commons Health Committee: Inequalities in access to maternity services. Eighth report of session 2002–2003. 2003, London: Stationery Office
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,001–2,100 of 2,119
PROPOSTA DE MODELO DE LIDERANÇA ORIENTADO POR DADOS PARA A EFETIVIDADE DO SETOR DE ENFERMAGEM
Gregório, S. R. F., Bernardino, E., Soares, B. F. C., Ferreira, M. M. S. V., da Silva, J. M. A. M., & Martins, M. M. (2026) · Revista de Geopolítica · doi:10.56238/revgeov17n7-185
Kartal, H. B. (2026) · Clinical and Translational Neuroscience · doi:10.3390/ctn10030022
Barriers to accessing paediatric critical care and surgery: A qualitative study
Zerbi, C. E., Cullen, E., Bidmead, E., Marambio, H.-U., Agbeko, R., Bloomfield, J., & Rankin, J. M. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0355278
Human–AI Symbiosis in Educational Communication
Hossain, E., Ali, H. M., & Urmee, N. (2026) · Communications · doi:10.21009/communications.8.2.3
Yongco, J. S., Alguno, A. C., & Petalcorin, G. (2026) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2026.2709508
English medium instruction in Jordanian medical education: a systematic review
Issa, H. M. B., Bakar, N. A., Daud, M. Z., Ying, J. H., & Issa, H. B. (2026) · International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE) · doi:10.11591/ijere.v15i4.39643
Backer, K. D., Montgomery, E., Sandall, J., & Easter, A. (2026) · SSM - Qualitative Research in Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2026.100844
Ellis, T., Redfern, J., Zecchin, R. P., & Cheng, S. W. M. (2026) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2026.109816
Preserving Participant Meaning in AI-Mediated Multilingual Qualitative Research
Oluka, A., & Mashau, P. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.188352.1
Rousseau, E., Bondarchuk, C. P., Lebelo, K., Matsebula, L., Bennin, F., Macdonald, P., Pike, C., Vanto, O., Mathole, N., Fynn, L., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph23081045
Trasca, E.-T., Rădulescu, D., Ciupeanu-Călugăru, E. D., Mercuţ, R., Băleanu, V. D., Căluianu, E. I., Vieru, A.-M., & Radulescu, P.-M. (2026) · Life · doi:10.3390/life16081320
Kierkegaard, P., Su, B., & Mummery, D. (2026) · SSM - Qualitative Research in Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2026.100841
Wilkinson, K., Stevens, M., Norman, S., Newlove‐Delgado, T., Garrood, A., McDonald, A., Foxwell, S., Walker, A., & Bjornstad, G. J. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10512753/v1
Rethinking AI ethics as a temporal socio-technical system: a critical synthesis
Ali, A. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01317-7
Ikhile, I. A., Lundström, M., Mavhandu‐Mudzusi, A. H., Palm, C., & Adekola, A. P. (2026) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2026.1900545
Strengthening Public Institutions for Resilience Finance
Owojori, O. M., & Erasmus, L. J. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-3778-2.ch001
Ebrahim, H. B., & Salami, M. O. (2026) · European Early Childhood Education Research Journal · doi:10.1080/1350293x.2026.2720047
Humanitarian procurement: goals, success factors and trade-offs
Costa, O. A. F., Saghiri, S. S., & Reefke, H. (2026) · Socio-Economic Planning Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.seps.2026.102587
Luyiga, S., & Alum, E. U. (2026) · Environmental Challenges · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2026.101631
Six Categories of Medical Uncertainty: A Framework for Emergency Medicine Education
Iserson, K. V. (2026) · Emergency Care and Medicine · doi:10.3390/ecm3030028
Prahmana, R. C. I., Maarif, S., & Pramudiani, P. (2026) · Jurnal Penelitian Kebijakan Pendidikan · doi:10.24832/jpkp.v19i1.1368
Mehta, A., & Malukani, S. P. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03339-5
Guter-Sandu, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7348962
Characterising Referral Pathways and Delays to Community Mental Health Services
Chai, K. E. K., Graham-Schmidt, K., McEvoy, P. M., Lee, C., Coleman, M., Robinson, S., Betts, K. S., & Rock, D. J. (2026) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1155/hsc/1127618
Evidence for Whom? Contestability and Socio-Technical Assurance in High-Risk AI GovernancePreprint
Bellibatlu, R. R., Singh, M., Uikey, P., & Joshi, R. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10864713/v1
Rasmussen, L. N. (2026) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-026-00963-9
Lemersre, P., Gervais-Hupé, J., Mathieu-Fritz, A., Carrier, A., Filleul, A., Bourges, N., Hudon, A., & Zidarov, D. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261487056
Pham, N. M. T., & Le, M. H. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10596776/v1
Hussain, S., Seguin, M., & Er, V. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10668566/v1
Whinges, Apples, and Evidence: Lenses of Value to Improve UsePreprint
Wells, V., & Gullickson, A. M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10198335/v1
Presset, B., Tanninen, M., Bode, M., Baena, F. G., & Kristensen, D. B. (2026) · Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · doi:10.1177/13634593261482082
NWambo, J. C., Bifarin, O. O., & Higginbotham, K. (2026) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1111/nin.70164
Gil, N., Kerrison, R., Whitaker, K. L., McBride, E., & Cox, A. (2026) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-026-03008-5
One Size Does Not Fit All in Qualitative Research Synthesis
Beck, C. T. (2026) · Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.jogn.2026.07.001
Firdaus, C. B. (2026) · Journal of Economic Epistemology and Philosophy · doi:10.55942/jeep.v1i2.2259
Dahlan, S. P. (2026) · Journal of Economic Epistemology and Philosophy · doi:10.55942/jeep.v1i2.2264
Reconfigurative care and clinical responsibility in AI-mediated psychological care ecosystems
Minami, U. (2026) · SSM - Mental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2026.100703
Khanom, A., Jones, L., Khanom, H. M., Baghdadi, F., John, A. M., Porter, A. M., Snooks, H. A., Siriwardena, A. N., Williams, J., Hettiarachchi, T., et al. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70861
Webb, G., Barton, C., & Lane, R. (2026) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2026.2731171
Expanded productivity, contested authority: creativity and AI in high-impact research
Sánchez-López, I., Rojas, H. M., & Cornelio, G. S. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03213-4
Dele-Dada, M. P., Osimen, G., & Ehiyamen, O. (2026) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-026-01709-w
Taadi, P. K., & Derman, B. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.09.07.26361905
Digital Storytelling, Smart Technologies, and Destination Branding in Literary Tourism
Pujar, R., & Saxena, J. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1955-9.ch005
Chowdhury, S. P., & Reza, S. M. A. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103679
Houngnihin, R. A., BIAO, M. Y. L., Gbèbioho, B., Togonou, F., & Azonchiga, D. (2026) · Dialogues in Health · doi:10.1016/j.dialog.2026.100350
Alimi, K. A., & Alimi, R. A. (2026) · Yemeni Journal For Medical Sciences · doi:10.20428/yjms.v20i5.4017
Assariotaki, M., Vasilaki, E., & Vasiou, A. (2026) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2026.109291
Kierkegaard, P., Su, B., Simson, G., McGregor, A., & Grayer, J. (2026) · SSM - Qualitative Research in Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2026.100876
de Andrade, J. M. R., Silva, A. V. D., Montenegro, I. M. O., da Silva, A. R., dos Santos, G. D. M. P., Júnior, D. J. D. S., Lima, J. A. D. C., Amaral, B. B. M., & da Silva, C. M. (2026) · Aposta · doi:10.23900/ra.v24i119.2052
Thomas, A.-K., Mitchell, A., Santos, R., Pollard, K. L., & Zaidi, Z. (2026) · Advances in Medical Education and Practice · doi:10.2147/amep.s616143
Ejiofor, C., Blake, G. M., Ilesanmi, P., & Wilson, C. (2026) · Emergency Care and Medicine · doi:10.3390/ecm3040034
Lana, B., Čebron, U. L., & Giles‐Vernick, T. (2026) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119836
Guo, W., Smith, P., Stemme, M. R., Patterson, D. L., & Han, S. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16101598
Coutinho, R. J. P. (2026) · Investigo repository of University of Vigo (University of Vigo) · doi:10.35869/11093/12616
Yongco, J. S. (2026) · Sexuality Research and Social Policy · doi:10.1007/s13178-026-01424-4
Sujadi, E., Ahmad, R. R. M. R., & Indra, S. (2026) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.70206
Lee, Y. S. (2026) · Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange · doi:10.47116/apjcri.2026.09.69
Hayden, M., May, E., Hurwitz, C., McCarthy, K., & Isobel, S. (2026) · Social Work With Groups · doi:10.1080/01609513.2026.2739325
Osborne, A., Bangura, C., Ali, A. S., Sesay, U., & Moon, T. D. (2026) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2026.2735716
Sukri, M. (2026) · Politea Jurnal Politik Islam · doi:10.20414/politea.v9i1.16102
Giosa, R. (2026) · Primary Health Care Research & Development · doi:10.1017/s1463423626101923
Sejdiu, N. P., & Sejdiu, S. (2026) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amag089
Goñi, J., Medina, A., Stormonth-Darling, J., Stewart, J., & Rodrigues, E. (2026) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-026-09294-2
Młynarczyk-Karabin, E., & Bodziony, J. (2026) · Horyzonty Wychowania · doi:10.35765/hw.2026.2575.09
Molloy, E., Dann, S.-A., Cross‐Sudworth, F., Delicate, A., Tadros, A., Bicknell, S., Morton, V. H., Kenyon, S. L., & Jones, L. (2026) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-026-03019-2
Primary care determinants for timely diagnosis of dementia
Gulline, H., Carmody, S., Bevins, A., Yates, M. W., Daly, S., Pond, D. C., Perin, S., Brodtmann, A., Loi, S. M., Lim, Y. Y., et al. (2026) · Family Medicine and Community Health · doi:10.1136/fmch-2026-004039
The Militarization of Health Systems: Towards a Conceptual Framework
Rotulo, A. (2026) · Development · doi:10.1057/s41301-026-00522-5
Dirty in Academia: Forty Years in a Misbehaving Body
Ibáñez-Carrasco, F. (2026) · Public humanities. · doi:10.1017/pub.2026.10218
The disruptive insider: black women, epistemic dissent, and the politics of institutional belonging
Babafemi, E. (2026) · Race Ethnicity and Education · doi:10.1080/13613324.2026.2743201
Algorithmic Deservingness: Accountability and Oversight in AI‐Mediated Access to Healthcare
Škudar, S. (2026) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70637
Siminiuc, R., Țurcanu, D., & Siminiuc, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2026.1943562
Kurniawan, R. P. (2026) · Journal of Economic Epistemology and Philosophy · doi:10.55942/jeep.v1i2.2296
Dahlan, O. P. (2026) · Journal of Economic Epistemology and Philosophy · doi:10.55942/jeep.v1i2.2297
Taye, B., Cash‐Gibson, L., Tesfa, E., & Dessie, B. A. (2026) · Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13010-026-00228-z
Alkholy, R., Bee, P., Pedley, R., & Lovell, K. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346995
Assessing digital competences in higher education teachers: a case study
Javier, Q. C. Y., Alejandra, B. P. M., Colmenarez, M., & Molero, D. A. L. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1985613
Nixon, L. L., Boyling, E., Mierau, E., Hughes, R., Ugburo-Shanomi, J., & Kelly, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Global Women s Health · doi:10.3389/fgwh.2026.1740814
Horizons, landscapes, grounds and worlds: an integrated information environments framework
Montague, K. E., & Hellmich, H. (2026) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-03-2026-0145
Afferri, A., Apps, J., Crowther, M., Mburu, G., Kiarie, J. N., & Balen, J. (2026) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmag031
Russell, O. K., Brown, A. E., Ruediger, C. D., Black, R. J., Hill, C. L., & Hoon, E. A. (2026) · Rheumatology Advances in Practice · doi:10.1093/rap/rkag121
Griffiths, K. E., Ring, I. T., Barbour, H., Madden, R., & Pulver, L. J. (2026) · Statistical Journal of the IAOS · doi:10.1177/18747655261491225
Bridging evidence and practice through evaluative judgementPreprint
Wells, V. L., & Burgess, S. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10204013/v1
Mendes, E., & Estragués, M. S. (2026) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2026.113153
Navigating uncertainty: pre-diagnostic tuberculosis experiences and care-seeking in Blantyre, Malawi
Semphere, R. M., Mukoka, M., Msosa, T. C., Twabi, H. H., MacPherson, P., Mushonga, R. H., Nliwasa, M., & Kumwenda, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1913596
Social norms in contemporary urban food sharing contexts: a critical interpretive review
Gatejel, A.-M., Morrow, O., Sovová, L., & Duncan, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2026.1793922
Digital Transformation and Smart Mobility Ecosystems
Kumari, K. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1333-5.ch012
Mendes, E., & Marc (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11319252/v1
Teaching AI, teaching bias: addressing gender inequality in public health education
Dietrich, A., Czok, K., & Ilskens, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1952627
Christoforaki, M., & Galani, A. (2026) · Journal of Geography · doi:10.1080/00221341.2026.2742197
Schmeising-Barnes, N., Lidington, E. K., Moschopoulou, E., Trivedi, D. P., & Waller, J. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70919
Rekik, R., & Askri, H. (2026) · Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education · doi:10.1007/s44186-026-00608-1
Rift Valley Fever at the Crossroads of Ecology Mobility and Fragmented Health Governance
Kivaria, F. M., Aceng, F. L., & Bebay, C. (2026) · EcoHealth · doi:10.1007/s10393-026-01838-x
Niederlohmann, E. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10936864/v1
Zenker, F., Thodberg, K., & Sandøe, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2026.1960144
Ngoc, L. A. (2026) · Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health · doi:10.1017/gmh.2026.10331
Cuartero, A. (2026) · Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico · doi:10.5209/emp.110066
The social determinants of health within Belgian pharmacies: an exploratory qualitative study
de Beeck, E. O., & Lööf, H. (2026) · Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.18549/pharmpract.2026.4.3718
Gibbison, B., Lumley, E., O’Cathain, A., Chan, J., Hopkins, E., Baquedano, M., Chan, J., Fudulu, D. P., King, C., & Pufulete, M. (2026) · Heart · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2026-328810
Zhu, Q., Jia, B., Yu, Q., Wang, M., Xie, W., Qi, L., Chen, H., Wang, M., & Li, X. (2026) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70930
Zainab, T., & Gill, A. (2026) · Journal of Regional Studies Review · doi:10.62843/jrsr/2026.v.iv.226
Metadata
- Authors
- Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Western General Hospital (GB)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Loughborough University (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2006-07-26
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-35
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1559637
- OpenAlex
- W2135504732
- Cited by
- 2,289
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 297 · 2025: 187 · 2024: 204 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 172 · 2021: 173 · 2020: 184 · 2019: 135 · 2018: 150 · 2017: 113 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 55
- FWCI
- 11.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- health care access, vulnerable populations, critical interpretive synthesis, candidacy, equitable access, health care utilization, interpretive synthesis, health disparities
- MeSH terms
- United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Research, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Research Design, Sampling Studies, Socioeconomic Factors, State Medicine, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Vulnerable Populations, Resource Allocation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
