ArticlePloS one2026
Health service access for ethnically underrepresented communities: A scoping review of complex interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this scoping review is to systematically map the existing evidence of complex interventions used to improve access and/or engagement of ethnically underrepresented communities with healthcare services in the UK, and explore equity factors of the evidence.
methodsThe review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Six databases were searched. Analysis was completed using reflexive and thematic content analysis. Interventions were mapped against the five domains of the Patient-centred access framework and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework.
resultsA total of 35 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies 63% were completed in primary care, 31% in mental health, 3% in maternity services and 3% in dental care. Several communities were represented, including Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, African Caribbeans, Jewish communities, as well as broader groups such as South Asians, migrants and Muslims. Complex interventions were spread across the five domains of the patient centred access framework and included strategies such as outreach workers, using community settings such as places of worship, cultural adaptations and cultural training for healthcare staff. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed in a third of studies. PROGRESS-Plus analysis identified exclusion criteria including age groups (e.g., below 18 years), ethnic groups (e.g., not first-generation migrants), disabilities (e.g., severe mental health problems) and plus (e.g., language proficiency).
conclusionsAll domains of the patient centred access framework were represented with approachability and acceptability being the most common. Effectiveness assessment was not included in two thirds of studies however, complex interventions show promise to improve equity in ethnically underrepresented communities. Future research should endeavour to assess effectiveness and the translation of interventions in healthcare contexts outside of primary care and mental health. Future policy and research should consider how to increase transparency of power and build strong collaborations with underrepresented communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.