Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Dec;65(641):e813-21.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X687853.

Digital communication between clinician and patient and the impact on marginalised groups: a realist review in general practice

Caroline J Huxley  1 , Helen Atherton  2 , Jocelyn Anstey Watkins  1 , Frances Griffiths  1
Affiliations
Review

Digital communication between clinician and patient and the impact on marginalised groups: a realist review in general practice

Caroline J Huxley et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Increasingly, the NHS is embracing the use of digital communication technology for communication between clinicians and patients. Policymakers deem digital clinical communication as presenting a solution to the capacity issues currently faced by general practice. There is some concern that these technologies may exacerbate existing inequalities in accessing health care. It is not known what impact they may have on groups who are already marginalised in their ability to access general practice.

Aim: To assess the potential impact of the availability of digital clinician-patient communication on marginalised groups' access to general practice in the UK.

Design and setting: Realist review in general practice.

Method: A four-step realist review process was used: to define the scope of the review; to search for and scrutinise evidence; to extract and synthesise evidence; and to develop a narrative, including hypotheses.

Results: Digital communication has the potential to overcome the following barriers for marginalised groups: practical access issues, previous negative experiences with healthcare service/staff, and stigmatising reactions from staff and other patients. It may reduce patient-related barriers by offering anonymity and offers advantages to patients who require an interpreter. It does not impact on inability to communicate with healthcare professionals or on a lack of candidacy. It is likely to work best in the context of a pre-existing clinician-patient relationship.

Conclusion: Digital communication technology offers increased opportunities for marginalised groups to access health care. However, it cannot remove all barriers to care for these groups. It is likely that they will remain disadvantaged relative to other population groups after their introduction.

Keywords: access to health care; communication; doctor-patient relations; general practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Literature search flow chart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. OFCOM Media: facts & figures. http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/ (accessed 27 Oct 2015).
    1. Health and Social Care Information Centre Health and Social Care Information Centre. NHSmail2. http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/nhsmail/future (accessed 27 Oct 2015).
    1. Department of Health The power of information: Putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/giving-people-control-of-the-... (accessed 27 Oct 2015).
    1. McLean S, Chandler D, Nurmatov U, et al. Telehealthcare for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD007717. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McLean S, Nurmatov U, Liu JL, et al. Telehealthcare for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(7):CD007718. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms