使用经过调整的候选资格框架,了解在一般实践中获得性健康和生殖健康的机会;系统回顾和定性证据合成。

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Rebecca Mawson, Victoria Hodges, Sarah Salway, Caroline Mitchell
{"title":"使用经过调整的候选资格框架,了解在一般实践中获得性健康和生殖健康的机会;系统回顾和定性证据合成。","authors":"Rebecca Mawson, Victoria Hodges, Sarah Salway, Caroline Mitchell","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background General practice has a key role in reducing inequity in access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Unplanned pregnancy, abortion and STIs are increasing and disproportionately affects deprived communities and ethnic minority groups. The candidacy framework offers a practical, theoretical framework for understanding the complex interactional processes of access to SRH in general practice. Aim To use the candidacy framework to explore access of SRH in general practice. The seven interaction stages include, identification of need, navigation of services, permeability of services, appearing and asserting need, adjudication by healthcare professional, offers or resistance of offer and the local operating conditions or local production of candidacy. Design and setting This study involved a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, and the Web of Science was conducted to identify primary qualitative research studies exploring access to SRH in general practice from practitioner, public, and patient perspectives in countries with universal healthcare. The candidacy framework was used to synthesise the findings. Results Analysis of 42 studies revealed the impact of stigma, shame, and embarrassment among individuals, communities, and healthcare practitioners. Findings showed limited inclusion of demographics such as ethnicity and socio-economic status. Barriers to access were more evident for those from lower socio-economic communities, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+. There are multiple barriers, which include the behaviours of healthcare professionals who have a crucial role in recognising an individual's SRH need. Conclusions General practice offers a cradle-to-grave healthcare service, which should have SRH as a priority area of provision. Further understanding is needed of the impact of historic harms by medicine and healthcare on racialised individuals and gender minorities.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding access to sexual and reproductive health in general practice using an adapted Candidacy Framework; a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Mawson, Victoria Hodges, Sarah Salway, Caroline Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background General practice has a key role in reducing inequity in access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Unplanned pregnancy, abortion and STIs are increasing and disproportionately affects deprived communities and ethnic minority groups. The candidacy framework offers a practical, theoretical framework for understanding the complex interactional processes of access to SRH in general practice. Aim To use the candidacy framework to explore access of SRH in general practice. The seven interaction stages include, identification of need, navigation of services, permeability of services, appearing and asserting need, adjudication by healthcare professional, offers or resistance of offer and the local operating conditions or local production of candidacy. Design and setting This study involved a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, and the Web of Science was conducted to identify primary qualitative research studies exploring access to SRH in general practice from practitioner, public, and patient perspectives in countries with universal healthcare. The candidacy framework was used to synthesise the findings. Results Analysis of 42 studies revealed the impact of stigma, shame, and embarrassment among individuals, communities, and healthcare practitioners. Findings showed limited inclusion of demographics such as ethnicity and socio-economic status. Barriers to access were more evident for those from lower socio-economic communities, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+. There are multiple barriers, which include the behaviours of healthcare professionals who have a crucial role in recognising an individual's SRH need. Conclusions General practice offers a cradle-to-grave healthcare service, which should have SRH as a priority area of provision. Further understanding is needed of the impact of historic harms by medicine and healthcare on racialised individuals and gender minorities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0522\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0522","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:全科医生在减少获得性健康和生殖健康方面的不平等方面发挥着关键作用。计划外怀孕、堕胎和性传播感染正在增加,对贫困社区和少数民族群体的影响尤为严重。候选资格框架为理解在一般实践中获得性生殖健康的复杂相互作用过程提供了一个实践的理论框架。目的利用候选资格框架来探索在一般实践中获得性生殖健康。这七个互动阶段包括:需求识别、服务导航、服务渗透、需求显现和主张、医疗保健专业人员的裁决、提供或拒绝提供、当地经营条件或候选人的当地生产。设计和背景本研究采用框架方法进行系统评价和定性证据合成。方法对MEDLINE、EMBASE、PUBMED和Web of Science进行系统检索,以确定在全民医疗保健国家从医生、公众和患者的角度探索全科医疗中SRH可及性的初步定性研究。候选资格框架被用来综合研究结果。结果对42项研究的分析揭示了污名、羞耻和尴尬对个人、社区和医疗保健从业人员的影响。调查结果显示,诸如种族和社会经济地位等人口统计数据的纳入有限。对于社会经济地位较低的社区、少数民族和LGBTQ+群体来说,进入大学的障碍更为明显。存在多种障碍,其中包括卫生保健专业人员的行为,他们在识别个人的性健康和生殖健康需求方面起着至关重要的作用。结论:全科医生提供从摇篮到坟墓的保健服务,应将性健康和生殖健康作为优先提供的领域。需要进一步了解医学和医疗保健对种族化个人和性别少数群体的历史伤害的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding access to sexual and reproductive health in general practice using an adapted Candidacy Framework; a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

Background General practice has a key role in reducing inequity in access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Unplanned pregnancy, abortion and STIs are increasing and disproportionately affects deprived communities and ethnic minority groups. The candidacy framework offers a practical, theoretical framework for understanding the complex interactional processes of access to SRH in general practice. Aim To use the candidacy framework to explore access of SRH in general practice. The seven interaction stages include, identification of need, navigation of services, permeability of services, appearing and asserting need, adjudication by healthcare professional, offers or resistance of offer and the local operating conditions or local production of candidacy. Design and setting This study involved a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework approach. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, and the Web of Science was conducted to identify primary qualitative research studies exploring access to SRH in general practice from practitioner, public, and patient perspectives in countries with universal healthcare. The candidacy framework was used to synthesise the findings. Results Analysis of 42 studies revealed the impact of stigma, shame, and embarrassment among individuals, communities, and healthcare practitioners. Findings showed limited inclusion of demographics such as ethnicity and socio-economic status. Barriers to access were more evident for those from lower socio-economic communities, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+. There are multiple barriers, which include the behaviours of healthcare professionals who have a crucial role in recognising an individual's SRH need. Conclusions General practice offers a cradle-to-grave healthcare service, which should have SRH as a priority area of provision. Further understanding is needed of the impact of historic harms by medicine and healthcare on racialised individuals and gender minorities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信