ArticleBMC primary care2026
Primary care receptionists influence migrant access to healthcare by acting as street-level bureaucrats: a scoping review.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReceptionists in primary care play a pivotal, yet underexplored, role in shaping access to healthcare for migrants. This scoping review applies Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy to examine if and how frontline administrative staff influence migrant access to primary care and thence to further health services.
methodsA systematic search was done of seven literature databases, the archives of seven journals, and five websites, following guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. We synthesised 44 sources – including peer-reviewed studies, grey literature, and newspaper articles – focusing on migrant interactions with UK general practice receptionists.
resultsThematic analysis revealed three dominant themes: receptionists are under-prepared to manage linguistic minorities; receptionists feel like protectors of the system; and receptionists’ choices reflect a wider institutional ethos. Findings suggest that receptionists frequently exercise discretionary power to either obstruct, or more rarely facilitate, migrant access to care. Despite official guidance mandating universal access to primary care, migrants are often informally denied registration when they are eligible for care. Receptionists’ behaviours were deeply influenced by implicit biases, the absence of formal translation resources, and prioritising practice priorities over the clinical needs of patients. However, individual actions seem to be shaped by broader discourse and structural constraints.
conclusionThis review highlights how receptionists exercise personal discretion through which migrant health inequalities are reproduced at the point of access. We make concrete recommendations for changes to medical training and practice, based on our results.
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.