Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAhmed, F
dc.contributor.authorAbel, GA
dc.contributor.authorLloyd, CE
dc.contributor.authorBurt, J
dc.contributor.authorRoland, M
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-08T10:07:01Z
dc.date.issued2015-05-06
dc.description.abstractBackground: Ethnic minorities report poorer evaluations of primary health care compared to White British patients. Emerging evidence suggests that when a doctor and patient share ethnicity and/or language this is associated with more positive reports of patient experience. Whether this is true for adults in English general practices remains to be explored. Methods: We analysed data from the 2010/2011 English General Practice Patient Survey, which were linked to data from the NHS Choices website to identify languages which were available at the practice. Our analysis was restricted to single-handed practices and included 190,582 patients across 1,068 practices. Including only single-handed practices enabled us to attribute, more accurately, reported patient experience to the languages that were listed as being available. We also carried out sensitivity analyses in multi-doctor practices. We created a composite score on a 0-100 scale from seven survey items assessing doctor-patient communication. Mixed-effect linear regression models were used to examine how differences in reported experience of doctor communication between patients of different self-reported ethnicities varied according to whether a South Asian language concordant with their ethnicity was available in their practice. Models were adjusted for patient characteristics and a random effect for practice. Results: Availability of a concordant language had the largest effect on communication ratings for Bangladeshis and the least for Indian respondents (p<0.01). Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian respondents on average reported poorer communication than White British respondents [-2.9 (95%CI -4.2, -1.6), -1.9 (95%CI -2.6, -1.2) and -1.9 (95%CI -2.5, -1.4), respectively]. However, in practices where a concordant language was offered, the experience reported by Pakistani patients was not substantially worse than that reported by White British patients (-0.2, 95%CI -1.5,+1.0), and in the case of Bangladeshi patients was potentially much better (+4.5, 95%CI -1.0,+10.1). This contrasts with a worse experience reported among Bangladeshi (-3.3, 95%CI -4.6, -2.0) and Pakistani (-2.7, 95%CI -3.6, -1.9) respondents when a concordant language was not offered. Conclusions: Substantial differences in reported patient experience exist between ethnic groups. Our results suggest that patient experience among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis is improved where the practice offers a language that is concordant with the patient's ethnicity.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipMedical Research Council (MRC)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 16, article 55en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12875-015-0270-5
dc.identifier.grantnumberG1000384en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/35826
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMCen_GB
dc.rights© 2015 Ahmed et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_GB
dc.subjectdoctor-patient communicationen_GB
dc.subjectethnic minorityen_GB
dc.subjectSouth Asiansen_GB
dc.subjectdoctor-patient relationshipen_GB
dc.subjectethnicityen_GB
dc.subjectinequalitiesen_GB
dc.titleDoes the availability of a South Asian language in practices improve reports of doctor-patient communication from South Asian patients? Cross sectional analysis of a national patient survey in English general practicesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-02-08T10:07:01Z
dc.identifier.issn1471-2296
dc.descriptionThis is the final published version. Available from BMC via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMC Family Practiceen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
pubs.euro-pubmed-idMED:25943553
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-04-27
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-05-06
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-02-08T10:04:43Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-08T10:07:03Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2015 Ahmed et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2015 Ahmed et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.