BackgroundThe involvement of patients and the public in healthcare has grown significantly in recent decades and is documented in health policy documents internationally. Many benefits of involving these groups in primary care planning have been reported. However, these benefits are rarely felt by those considered marginalised in society and they are often excluded from participating in the process of planning primary care. It has been recommended to employ suitable approaches, such as co-operative and participatory initiatives, to enable marginalised groups to highlight their priorities for care.MethodsThis Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) research study involved 21 members of various marginalised groups who contributed their views about access to primary care. Using a series of PLA techniques for data generation and co-analysis, we explored barriers and facilitators to primary healthcare access from the perspective of migrants, Irish Travellers, homeless people, drug users, sex workers and people living in deprivation, and identified their priorities for action with regard to primary care provision.ResultsFour overarching themes were identified: the home environment, the effects of the ‘two-tier’ healthcare system on engagement, healthcare encounters, and the complex health needs of many in those groups. The study demonstrates that there are many complicated personal and structural barriers to accessing primary healthcare for marginalised groups. There were shared and differential experiences across the groups. Participants also expressed shared priorities for action in the planning and running of primary care services.ConclusionsMembers of marginalised groups have shared priorities for action to improve their access to primary care. If steps are taken to address these, there is scope to impact on more than one marginalised group and to address the existing health inequities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0487-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bias is the evaluation of something or someone that can be positive or negative, and implicit or unconscious bias is when the person is unaware of their evaluation. This is particularly relevant to policymaking during the coronavirus pandemic and racial inequality highlighted during the support for the Black Lives Matter movement. A literature review was performed to define bias, identify the impact of bias on clinical practice and research as well as clinical decision making (cognitive bias). Bias training could bridge the gap from the lack of awareness of bias to the ability to recognise bias in others and within ourselves. However, there are no effective debiasing strategies. Awareness of implicit bias must not deflect from wider socioeconomic, political and structural barriers as well ignore explicit bias such as prejudice.

BackgroundSocial exclusion is a concept that has been widely debated in recent years; a particular focus of the discussion has been its significance in relation to health. The meanings of the phrase “social exclusion”, and the closely associated term “social inclusion”, are contested in the literature. Both of these concepts are important in relation to health and the area of primary healthcare in particular. Thus, several tools for the measurement of social exclusion or social inclusion status in health care settings have been developed.MethodsA scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted to examine tools developed since 2000 that measure social exclusion or social inclusion. We focused on those measurement tools developed for use with individual patients in healthcare settings. Efforts were made to obtain a copy of each of the original tools, and all relevant background literature. All tools retrieved were compared in tables, and the specific domains that were included in each measure were tabulated.ResultsTwenty-two measurement tools were included in the final scoping review. The majority of these had been specifically developed for the measurement of social inclusion or social exclusion, but a small number were created for the measurement of other closely aligned concepts. The majority of the tools included were constructed for engaging with patients in mental health settings. The tools varied greatly in their design, the scoring systems and the ways they were administered. The domains covered by these tools varied widely and some of the tools were quite narrow in the areas of focus. A review of the definitions of both social inclusion and social exclusion also revealed the variations among the explanations of these complex concepts.ConclusionsThere are several definitions of both social inclusion and social exclusion in use and they differ greatly in scope. While there are many tools that have been developed for measuring these concepts in healthcare settings, these do not have a primary healthcare focus. There is a need for the development of a tool for measuring social inclusion or social exclusion in primary healthcare settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0732-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: Individuals with multimorbidity in deprived areas experience worse health outcomes and fragmented care. Research suggests that primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing have potential to improve health and well-being. This paper reports the results of a pilot study conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to test the effectiveness of primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing in improving health outcomes for people with multimorbidity who attend general practices in deprived areas in Ireland. Methods: An uncontrolled pilot study of an intervention based on the Glasgow Deep End links worker programme, in a single general practice, tested the feasibility and acceptability of planned processes for a RCT. Outcomes were recruitment and retention rates and acceptability of the trial processes and intervention to patients, general practitioners (GPs) and the link worker. Structured interviews were conducted with six patients, the link worker and two GPs within the practice and analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis. Feedback from a Public Patient Involvement group and an Implementation Advisory Group of key stakeholders was incorporated into the evaluation process. Results: Twelve out of 14 patients completed the intervention. Selection and recruitment processes were lengthier than expected. GPs recommended including psychosocial need in the selection process. Interviewed patients, the GPs and the link worker were positive about the intervention. Conclusion: A range of adaptations were identified for the main trial, mainly considering psychosocial need in the selection process to reflect normal referral pathways. This has resulted in a pragmatic RCT design.

Background: A well-functioning general practice sector that has a strong research component is recognised as a key foundation of any modern health system. General practitioners (GPs) are more likely to collaborate in research if they are part of an established research network. The primary aims of this study are to describe Ireland's newest general practice-based research network and to analyse the perspectives of the network's members on research engagement. Method: A survey was sent to all GPs participating in the network in order to document practice characteristics so that this research network's profile could be compared to other national profiles of Irish general practice. In depth interviews were then conducted and analysed thematically to explore the experiences and views of a selection of these GPs on research engagement. Results: All 134 GPs responded to the survey. Practices have similar characteristics to the national profile in terms of location, size, computerisation, type of premises and out of hours arrangements. Twenty-two GPs were interviewed and the resulting data was categorised into subthemes and four related overarching themes: GPs described catalysts for research in their practices, the need for coherence in how research is understood in this context, systems failures, whereby the current health system design is prohibitive of GP participation and aspirations for a better future. Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that the research network under examination is representative of current trends in Irish general practice. It has elucidated a better understanding of factors that need to be addressed in order to encourage more GPs to engage in the research process.