Equity in access through a digital hospital appointment system: a reflexive thematic analysis of frontline registration staff perspectives in Türkiye.

IF 4.1 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Frontiers in Public Health Pub Date : 2026-10-09 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1958637
Habibullah Akıncı, Sema Dalkılıç
{"title":"Equity in access through a digital hospital appointment system: a reflexive thematic analysis of frontline registration staff perspectives in Türkiye.","authors":"Habibullah Akıncı, Sema Dalkılıç","doi":"10.3389/fpubh.2026.1958637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Digital appointment systems increasingly mediate access to healthcare. However, not all individuals benefit equally from these systems, and the experiences of the frontline staff responsible for operating them remain underexplored. This qualitative study examined how hospital registration staff perceive access inequities, exercise discretion when formal procedures fail to meet patients' needs, and understand equality and equity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 frontline registration staff working in two public hospitals in Central Anatolia, Türkiye. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, combining semantic and latent interpretation. Coding was conducted primarily in a data-driven manner, while the multidimensional model of access, street-level bureaucracy theory, and a social justice perspective informed the analytical interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis generated five interconnected themes. The findings indicate that formally equal access to the appointment system does not translate into substantively equal opportunities to obtain care. Differences in digital proficiency, social support, transportation access, and temporal flexibility shape patients' ability to navigate the system, while social connections may provide additional informal access advantages. Staff exercise discretion to assist patients when formal procedures prove insufficient. However, such assistance may make access dependent on staff members' willingness and capacity to intervene, as well as on organisational approval and available resources. Support for disadvantaged patients is commonly understood not as an institutional right but as an act of conscience and humanity.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Overall, the findings reveal a process of conscience-based repair of structurally unequal access: staff attempt to reduce inequities through individual efforts, while the underlying structural conditions remain unchanged. When equitable access is not institutionally guaranteed, responsibility for compensating for these inequalities is partly transferred to frontline staff. Transparent, consistent, and rights-based institutional arrangements are therefore needed to ensure equitable access.</p>","PeriodicalId":12548,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Public Health","volume":"14 ","pages":"1958637"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13690947/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1958637","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Digital appointment systems increasingly mediate access to healthcare. However, not all individuals benefit equally from these systems, and the experiences of the frontline staff responsible for operating them remain underexplored. This qualitative study examined how hospital registration staff perceive access inequities, exercise discretion when formal procedures fail to meet patients' needs, and understand equality and equity.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 frontline registration staff working in two public hospitals in Central Anatolia, Türkiye. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, combining semantic and latent interpretation. Coding was conducted primarily in a data-driven manner, while the multidimensional model of access, street-level bureaucracy theory, and a social justice perspective informed the analytical interpretation.

Results: The analysis generated five interconnected themes. The findings indicate that formally equal access to the appointment system does not translate into substantively equal opportunities to obtain care. Differences in digital proficiency, social support, transportation access, and temporal flexibility shape patients' ability to navigate the system, while social connections may provide additional informal access advantages. Staff exercise discretion to assist patients when formal procedures prove insufficient. However, such assistance may make access dependent on staff members' willingness and capacity to intervene, as well as on organisational approval and available resources. Support for disadvantaged patients is commonly understood not as an institutional right but as an act of conscience and humanity.

Discussion: Overall, the findings reveal a process of conscience-based repair of structurally unequal access: staff attempt to reduce inequities through individual efforts, while the underlying structural conditions remain unchanged. When equitable access is not institutionally guaranteed, responsibility for compensating for these inequalities is partly transferred to frontline staff. Transparent, consistent, and rights-based institutional arrangements are therefore needed to ensure equitable access.

通过数字医院预约系统获得公平:对 rkiye前线注册人员观点的反思性专题分析。
数字预约系统越来越多地调解获得医疗保健。然而,并不是所有人都能从这些系统中获得平等的好处,负责操作这些系统的一线员工的经验仍未得到充分的探索。本定性研究考察了医院注册人员如何感知获取不公平,在正式程序无法满足患者需求时如何行使自由裁量权,以及如何理解平等和公平。方法:对基耶省中部安纳托利亚两所公立医院的20名一线挂号人员进行半结构化访谈。数据分析采用反身性主位分析,结合语义解释和潜在解释。编码主要以数据驱动的方式进行,而多维访问模型、街头官僚主义理论和社会正义视角为分析解释提供了信息。结果:分析产生了五个相互关联的主题。研究结果表明,正式平等的预约制度并不能转化为实质平等的获得护理的机会。数字熟练程度、社会支持、交通便利和时间灵活性的差异决定了患者驾驭系统的能力,而社会关系可能提供额外的非正式访问优势。当正式程序证明不足时,工作人员行使自由裁量权协助患者。但是,这种援助可能取决于工作人员干预的意愿和能力,也取决于组织的批准和现有的资源。对弱势病人的支持通常不被理解为一种制度权利,而是一种良心和人道行为。讨论:总体而言,调查结果揭示了一个基于良心的修复结构性不平等机会的过程:工作人员试图通过个人努力减少不平等,而潜在的结构性条件保持不变。当公平获取得不到制度保障时,补偿这些不平等的责任部分转移到一线工作人员身上。因此,需要透明、一致和基于权利的体制安排来确保公平获取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
4469
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Public Health is a multidisciplinary open-access journal which publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research and is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians, policy makers and the public worldwide. The journal aims at overcoming current fragmentation in research and publication, promoting consistency in pursuing relevant scientific themes, and supporting finding dissemination and translation into practice. Frontiers in Public Health is organized into Specialty Sections that cover different areas of research in the field. Please refer to the author guidelines for details on article types and the submission process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书