Cited by 86Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityElectronic Health Records Systems

Digital communication between clinician and patient and the impact on marginalised groups: a realist review in general practice

Open access
Huxley, Caroline J, Atherton, Helen, Watkins, Jocelyn Anstey, Griffiths, Frances·2015·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, the NHS is embracing the use of digital communication technology for communication between clinicians and patients. Policymakers deem digital clinical communication as presenting a solution to the capacity issues currently faced by general practice. There is some concern that these technologies may exacerbate existing inequalities in accessing health care. It is not known what impact they may have on groups who are already marginalised in their ability to access general practice. AIM: To assess the potential impact of the availability of digital clinician-patient communication on marginalised groups' access to general practice in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Realist review in general practice. METHOD: A four-step realist review process was used: to define the scope of the review; to search for and scrutinise evidence; to extract and synthesise evidence; and to develop a narrative, including hypotheses. RESULTS: Digital communication has the potential to overcome the following barriers for marginalised groups: practical access issues, previous negative experiences with healthcare service/staff, and stigmatising reactions from staff and other patients. It may reduce patient-related barriers by offering anonymity and offers advantages to patients who require an interpreter. It does not impact on inability to communicate with healthcare professionals or on a lack of candidacy. It is likely to work best in the context of a pre-existing clinician-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: Digital communication technology offers increased opportunities for marginalised groups to access health care. However, it cannot remove all barriers to care for these groups. It is likely that they will remain disadvantaged relative to other population groups after their introduction.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp15x687853

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Neville RG, Marsden W, McCowan C, et al. A survey of GP attitudes to and experiences of email consultations. Inform Prim Care 2004; 12(4): 201-206.
  2. Moyer CA, Katz SJ. Online patient-provider communication: how will it fit? Electronic Journal of Communication 2007; 17(3-4).
  3. Read M, Byrne P, Walsh A. Dial a clinic: a new approach to reducing the number of defaulters. Br J Healthcare Management 1997; 3: 307-310.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huxley, C. J., Atherton, H., Watkins, J. A., & Griffiths, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2015-11-29
Volume
65
Issue
641
Pages
e813-e821
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2216893194
Cited by
86
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CSA03/003, SPCR-030)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
general practice, marginalised groups, health disparities, access to general practice, barriers to care, patient anonymity, interpreting, clinician-patient relationship
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication Barriers, United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Physician-Patient Relations, State Medicine, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Internet, Cultural Competency, Healthcare Disparities, Evidence-Based Practice, General Practice

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