Ethnic inequalities in patient satisfaction with primary health care in the UK: evidence from recent General Practitioner Patient Surveys (GPPS)
Magadi, J. P.; Magadi, M. A.
Show abstract
Aims and objectivesThis paper aims to improve understanding of factors that contribute to persistent ethnic disparities in patient satisfaction in the UK. The specific objectives are to (i) examine ethnic differences in patient satisfaction with their primary care in the UK; (ii) establish recent trends in patient satisfaction by ethnicity; and (iii) examine factors that contribute to ethnic differences in patient satisfaction. Data and methodsThe study is based on secondary analysis of recent General Practitioner Patient Survey (GPPS) datasets of 2019, 2020 and 2021. Descriptive bivariate analysis was used to examine ethnic differences in patient satisfaction across the three years. This was followed with multilevel linear regression, with General Practice (GP) at level-1 and Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at level-2 to identify factors contributing to ethnic differences in patient satisfaction. ResultsThe findings show consistent negative correlations between the proportion of patients reporting good (very or fairly good) overall experience and each of the ethnic minority groups. Further examination of the distribution of patient satisfaction by ethnicity, based on combined ethnic minority groups, depicted a clear negative association between ethnic minority group and patient satisfaction at both GP and CCG level. Multilevel regression analysis identified several service-related factors (especially ease of using GP website and being treated with care and concern) that largely explained the ethnic differences in patient satisfaction. Of all factors relating to patient characteristics considered in the analysis, none was significant after controlling for GP service-related factors. ConclusionsEthnic minority patients in the UK continue to consistently report lower satisfaction with their primary health care in recent years. This is largely attributable to supply (service related) rather than demand (patient characteristics) factors. These findings have important implications for health care system policy and practice at both GP and CCG levels in the UK.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Are Dutch General Practitioners willing to prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol?: a mixed-methods study 94%
- Implementation of predictive risk stratification to reduce emergency admissions to hospital: experiences of general practitioners and practice managers 94%
- Factors influencing focused practice: A qualitative study of resident and early-career family physician practice choices 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- “I don’t know what to do or where to go”. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK 94%
- Patients’ and carers’ experiences of, and engagement with remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study 93%
- “ Creating a culturally competent pharmacy profession ”: a qualitative exploration of pharmacy staff perspectives of cultural competence and its training in community pharmacy settings 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pre-Post Analysis of the Impact of British Columbia Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Clinics on Patient Health and Care Experience 94%
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Northern Ireland Western Health and Social Care Trust: a cross-sectional study 94%
- Family physicians supporting patients with palliative care needs within the Patient Medical Home in the community: An Appreciative Inquiry qualitative study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.