Evidence mapPaperPMID 38936884Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024

Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.

Carol Sinnott, Akbar Ansari, Evleen Price, Rebecca Fisher, Jake Beech, Hugh Alderwick, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Access to general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Carol SinnottHealth Foundation professor of healthcare improvement studies, The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.ORCID 0000-0002-8620-7461
Akbar AnsariHealth Foundation professor of healthcare improvement studies, The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.ORCID 0000-0001-5187-7062
Evleen PriceHealth Foundation professor of healthcare improvement studies, The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.ORCID 0009-0000-2236-6490
Rebecca FisherThe Health Foundation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1092-6144
Jake BeechThe Health Foundation, London, UK.
Hugh AlderwickThe Health Foundation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9362-2567
Mary Dixon-WoodsHealth Foundation professor of healthcare improvement studies, The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.ORCID 0000-0002-5915-0041

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDominant conceptualisations of access to health care are limited, framed in terms of speed and supply. The Candidacy Framework offers a more comprehensive approach, identifying diverse influences on how access is accomplished.

aimTo characterise how the Candidacy Framework can explain access to general practice - an increasingly fraught area of public debate and policy. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative review guided by the principles of critical interpretive synthesis.

methodWe conducted a literature review using an author-led approach, involving iterative analytically guided searches. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they related to the context of general practice, without geographical or time limitations. Key themes relating to access to general practice were extracted and synthesised using the Candidacy Framework.

resultsA total of 229 articles were included in the final synthesis. The seven features identified in the original Candidacy Framework are highly salient to general practice. Using the lens of candidacy demonstrates that access to general practice is subject to multiple influences that are highly dynamic, contingent, and subject to constant negotiation. These influences are socioeconomically and institutionally patterned, creating risks to access for some groups. This analysis enables understanding of the barriers to access that may exist, even though general practice in the UK is free at the point of care, but also demonstrates that a Candidacy Framework specific to this setting is needed.

conclusionThe Candidacy Framework has considerable value as a way of understanding access to general practice, offering new insights for policy and practice. The original framework would benefit from further customisation for the distinctive setting of general practice.

Indexed as

General PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomaccess to carecandidacygeneral practicequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID38936884
PMCPMC11441605

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.