Social disparities in healthcare access and utilisation are well-documented. However, the underlying mechanisms driving these disparities are not fully uncovered. This study presents a systematic review of qualitative research exploring organisational and relational factors that contribute to social disparities in healthcare encounters.
Methods:
The review was conducted in three scientific databases (PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo). Studies were independently screened by two researchers, and the quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme assessment tool. A thematic analysis was used to identify patterns across included studies.
Results:
In total, 15 qualitative studies were included, from which 10 themes were identified, including: (1) complexity of the healthcare system, (2) resource constraints in the healthcare system, (3) deficiencies in healthcare professionals’ education, (4) patients’ perceptions of health and illness, (5) roles and expectations in patient decision-making and communication, (6) prejudices and labelling of patients with lower socioeconomic status, (7) equality and power balance in healthcare interactions, (8) patients’ financial and social living circumstances, (9) patients’ understanding of health information, and (10) trust and respect in healthcare interactions
Conclusions:
The study identified key mechanisms that contribute to social disparities in healthcare encounters between patients and the healthcare system. These findings may inform future health interventions and policy actions aimed at reducing social disparities in patient–healthcare interactions. However, further research within the Scandinavian context is warranted to validate and expand upon these results.
DiderichsenFAndersenIManuelC.Ulighed i sundhed: Årsager og indsatser. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2011.
2.
van RoodeTPaulyBMMarcellusL, et al. Values are not enough: Qualitative study identifying critical elements for prioritization of health equity in health systems. Int J Equity Health2020;19:162.
3.
MarmotMFrielSBellR, et al. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet2008;372:1661-9.
4.
LarsenATKlausenMBHøjgaardB.Primary health care in the Nordic countries: Comparative analysis and identification of challenges. Copenhagen: VIVE – The Danish Center for Social Science Research, 2020.
5.
NOMESCO. Health statistics for the Nordic Countries 2017. In: HaagensenKlaus MunchAgerskovUllaVestergaardTroels A. (eds) Copenhagen: NOMESCO, Vestergaard, 2017.
6.
LaugesenKLudvigssonJFSchmidtM, et al. Nordic health registry-based research: A review of health care systems and key registries. Clin Epidemiol2021;13:533-54.
7.
ObamaB.United States health care reform: Progress to date and next steps. JAMA2016;316:525-32.
8.
BravemanPGottliebL.The social determinants of health: It’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep2014;129 (Suppl. 2):19-31.
9.
UdesenCSkaarupCPetersenM, et al. Social ulighed i sundhed og sygdom. Udviklingen I Danmark I Perioden 2010–2017 Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2020.
10.
SpencerKLGraceM.Social foundations of health care inequality and treatment bias. Annu Rev Sociol2016;42:101-20.
11.
ChristensenAVKochMBDavidsenM, et al. Educational inequality in cardiovascular disease depends on diagnosis: A nationwide register based study from Denmark. Eur J Prev Cardiol2020;23:826-33.
12.
DaltonSOSchüzJEngholmG, et al. Social inequality in incidence of and survival from cancer in a population-based study in Denmark, 1994–2003: Summary of findings. Eur J Cancer2008;44:2074-85.
13.
RasmussenJNRasmussenSGislasonGH, et al. Mortality after acute myocardial infarction according to income and education. J Epidemiol Community Health2006;60:351-6.
14.
MackenbachJPStirbuIRoskamAJ, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med2008;358:2468-81.
15.
StringhiniSCarmeliCJokelaM, et al. Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: A multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women. Lancet2017;389:1229-37.
16.
OlshanskySJAntonucciTBerkmanL, et al. Differences in life expectancy due to race and educational differences are widening, and many may not catch up. Health Aff (Millwood)2012;31:1803-13.
17.
MackenbachJPHuYArtnikB, et al. Trends in inequalities in mortality amenable to health care In 17 European countries. Health Aff (Millwood)2017;36:1110-8.
18.
ArcayaMCArcayaALSubramanianSV.Inequalities in health: Definitions, concepts, and theories. Glob Health Action2015;8:27106.
19.
GalobardesBShawMLawlorDA, et al. Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health2006;60:7-12.
20.
KriegerNWilliamsDRMossNE.Measuring social class in US public health research: Concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health1997;18:341-78.
21.
LynchJKaplanG.Socioeconomic position: Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
22.
AndersenRM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter?J Health Soc Behav1995;36(1):1-10.
23.
LederleMTempesJBitzerEM.Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: A scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research. BMJ Open2021;11:e045018.
24.
AndersenRM.National health surveys and the behavioral model of health services use. Med Care2008;46:647-53.
25.
PedersenPV. Socialt udsattes møde med sundhedsvæsnet. Copenhagen: Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, 2018.
26.
Dixon-WoodsMCaversDAgarwalS, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol2006;6:35.
27.
Munch-PetersenM. Brugerinddragelse og ulighed i sundhed – En litteraturafdækning. Copenhagen: Videnscenter for Brugerinddragelse i Sundhedsvæsenet, 2019.
28.
SiminoffLAGrahamGCGordonNH.Cancer communication patterns and the influence of patient characteristics: Disparities in information-giving and affective behaviors. Patient Educ Couns2006;62:355-60.
29.
DenckerATjørnhøj-ThomsenTPedersenPV.A qualitative study of mechanisms influencing social inequality in cancer communication. Psychooncology2021;30:1965-72.
30.
VerlindeEDe LaenderNDe MaesschalckS, et al. The social gradient in doctor–patient communication. Int J Equity Health2012;11:12.
31.
PopeCMaysN (eds). Qualitative Research in Health Care, 3rd ed.BMJ Books, 2006.
32.
GreenhalghTAnnandaleEAshcroftR, et al. An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ2016;352:i563.
33.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021;372:n71.
34.
AromatarisEMunnZ (eds). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020.
35.
Statistics Denmark. Statistikdokumentation for Indvandrere og efterkommere 2017 [Statistical documentation of immigrants and descendants 2017]. Copenhagen: Statistics Denmark, 2017.
FederGSHutsonMRamsayJ, et al. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: Expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: A meta-analysis of qualitative studies. Arch Intern Med2006;166:22-37.
38.
ThompsonMNNitzarimRSColeOD, et al. Clinical experiences with clients who are low-income: Mental health practitioners’ perspectives. Qual Health Res2015;25:1675-88.
39.
LealIMKaoLSKaranjawalaB, et al. Understanding patients’ experiences of diagnosis and treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in a safety-net hospital system: A qualitative study. Dis Colon Rectum2018;61:504-13.
40.
ScottAO’CathainAGoyderE.Socioeconomic disparities in access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: A qualitative study of patient and healthcare professional perspectives. Int J Equity Health2019;18:1-13.
41.
SchröderSLFinkARichterM.Socioeconomic differences in experiences with treatment of coronary heart disease: A qualitative study from the perspective of elderly patients. BMJ Open2018;8:e024151.
42.
HeamanMISwordWElliottL, et al. Barriers and facilitators related to use of prenatal care by inner-city women: Perceptions of health care providers. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth2015;15:1-13.
43.
ProtheroeJBrooksHChew-GrahamC, et al. ‘Permission to participate?’ A qualitative study of participation in patients from differing socio-economic backgrounds. J Health Psychol2013;18:1046-55.
44.
BellAV.“I think about Oprah” social class differences in sources of health information. Qual Health Res2014;24:506-16.
45.
McSorleyAMMPeipertJDGonzalezC, et al. Dialysis providers’ perceptions of barriers to transplant for black and low-income patients: A mixed methods analysis guided by the socio-ecological model for transplant. World Med Health Policy2017;9:399-417.
46.
NyholmNHalvorsenIMygindA, et al. Diversity in cancer care: Exploring social categories in encounters between healthcare professionals and breast cancer patients. Scand J Caring Sci2018;32:1108-17.
47.
CoventryPAFisherLKenningC, et al. Capacity, responsibility, and motivation: A critical qualitative evaluation of patient and practitioner views about barriers to self-management in people with multimorbidity. BMC Health Serv Res2014;14(1).
48.
LoignonCHudonCGouletÉ, et al. Perceived barriers to healthcare for persons living in poverty in Quebec, Canada: The EQUIhealThY project. Int J Equity Health2015;14:1-11.
49.
GambleJGrantJTsourtosG.Missed opportunities: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of smoking cessation interventions among socially disadvantaged pregnant women. Women Birth2015;28:8-15.
50.
WiseCPhillipsK.Hearing the silent voices: Narratives of health care and homelessness. Issues Ment Health Nurs2013;34:359-67.
51.
DionK.Perceptions of persons who inject drugs about nursing care they have received. J Addict Nurs2019;30:101-7.
52.
GoderskyMESaxonAJMerrillJO, et al. Provider and patient perspectives on barriers to buprenorphine adherence and the acceptability of video directly observed therapy to enhance adherence. Addict Sci Clin Pract2019;14(1).
53.
TerryGHayfieldNClarkeV, et al. Thematic analysis. In: The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. SAGE Publications, 2017, pp.17-37.
54.
BraunVClarkeV.Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006;3:77-101.
55.
CoventryPAFisherLKenningC, et al. Capacity, responsibility, and motivation: A critical qualitative evaluation of patient and practitioner views about barriers to self-management in people with multimorbidity. BMC Health Serv Res2014;14:536.
56.
NyholmNHalvorsenIMygindA, et al. Diversity in cancer care: Exploring social categories in encounters between healthcare professionals and breast cancer patients. Scand J Caring Sci2018;32:1108-17.
57.
FrielSMarmotMG.Action on the social determinants of health and health inequities goes global. Annu Rev Public Health2011;32:225-36.
58.
FiscellaKEpsteinRM.So much to do, so little time: Care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit. Arch Intern Med2008;168:1843-52.
59.
CareyGMalbonECareyN, et al. Systems science and systems thinking for public health: A systematic review of the field. BMJ Open2015;5:e009002.
60.
SmithSKDixonATrevenaL, et al. Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups. Soc Sci Med2009;69:1805-12.
61.
ShimJK.Cultural health capital: A theoretical approach to understanding health care interactions and the dynamics of unequal treatment. J Health Soc Behav2010;51:1-15.
62.
SongLChangT-Y.Do resources of network members help in help seeking? Social capital and health information search. Soc Netw2012;34:658-69.
63.
KureJ.Ulighed i sundhed – baggrundsnotat. Copenhagen: Danske patienter, 2019.
64.
OECD. Health at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.
65.
CyrilSSmithBJPossamai-InesedyA, et al. Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: A systematic review. Glob Health Action2015;8:29842.
66.
RasmussenASodemannM.Narrativ medicin som nyt, interdisciplinært felt [Narrative medicine as a new, interdisciplinary field]. Ugeskr Laeger2020;182(9): V08190446.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
