Back

Accessibility and perceived quality of GP care for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients: a qualitative patient-centered interview study

Bijl, H. A.; Zwinkels, D. N.; van Linschoten, R. C. A.

2025-02-27 primary care research
10.1101/2025.02.27.25322989 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionPatients with lower socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands may face significant barriers to accessing and receiving general practitioner (GP) care. Factors such as lower health literacy, economic disadvantage, and cultural diversity contribute to these challenges, often leading to lower satisfaction and reduced access. This study investigates how patients with low SES perceive the accessibility and quality of GP care, with the goal of identifying ways to improve care for this vulnerable group. MethodsThis qualitative study used in-depth semi-structured interviews to explore how patients with low SES experience the accessibility and perceived quality of GP care. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. ResultsA total of 16 patients were interviewed. Key themes emerged regarding accessibility and perceived quality of care. Patients highly valued quick access to appointments and multiple contact options. Digital healthcare tools were appreciated for their convenience, especially among younger and more educated patients. However, face-to-face interactions were universally preferred for serious health concerns. Effective communication and empathic care turned out to be crucial factors in shaping patient satisfaction. Lastly, the importance of continuity of care was emphasized, especially by patients with chronic conditions, who valued building strong rapports with their GP. ConclusionOur study found that quick access, multiple contact options, and clear communication are key drivers of patient satisfaction with GP care for patients with low SES. Emphasizing communication quality and empathetic care can significantly improve the perceived quality and accessibility of healthcare for vulnerable populations.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.