Cited by 66Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealth disparities and outcomesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Social Disparities in Patient Safety in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

Open access
Piccardi, Carlotta, Detollenaere, Jens, Vanden Bussche, Pierre, Willems, Sara·2018·International Journal for Equity in Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a quality indicator for primary care and it should be based on individual needs, and not differ among different social groups. Nevertheless, the attention on social disparities in patient safety has been mainly directed towards the hospital care, often overlooking the primary care setting. Therefore, this paper aims to synthesise social disparities in patient safety in the primary care setting. METHODS: The Databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies published between January 1st 2006 and January 31st 2017. Papers investigating racial, gender and socioeconomic disparities in regards to administrative errors, diagnostic errors, medication errors and transition of care errors in primary care were included. No distinction in terms of participants' age was made. RESULTS: Women and black patients are more likely to experience patient safety events in primary care, although it depends on the type of disease, treatment, and healthcare service. The available literature largely describes gender and ethnic disparities in the different patient safety domains whilst income and educational level are studied to a lesser extent. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that vulnerable social groups are likely to experience adverse patient safety events in primary care. Enhancing family doctors' awareness of these inequities is a necessary first step to tackle them and improve patient safety for all patients. Future research should focus on social disparities in patient safety using socioeconomic indicators, such as income and education.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12939-018-0828-7

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Some patients demand specific testing methods or treatments due to their cultural considerations that are in conflict with current guidance from their healthcare providers.

    “some patients demand specific testing methods or treatments due to their cultural considerations that are in conflict with current guidance from their healthcare providers [73].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) suggests that patients’ culture and assertiveness could lead them to demand inappropriate prescriptions or testing. The citing sentence presents this possible explanation as an established behavior and adds a conflict with providers’ current guidance that the review does not explicitly describe. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]Dodds A The management of risks to patient safety and service quality in primary care: a review 2010 London King’s Patient Safety and Service Quality Research Centre

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Piccardi, C., Detollenaere, J., Vanden Bussche, P., & Willems, S.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Willems, Sara
Venue
International Journal for Equity in Health
Published
2018-08-07
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
114-114
ISSN
1475-9276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2885241551
Cited by
66
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal for Equity in Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
patient safety, social disparities, primary care, racial disparities, gender disparities, ethnic disparities, diagnostic errors, medication errors, administrative errors, health disparities, socioeconomic status
MeSH terms
Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Racial Groups, Healthcare Disparities, Young Adult, Patient Safety

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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