Background: Ethnic/racial inequalities in access to and quality of healthcare have been repeatedly documented in the USA. Although there is some evidence of inequalities in England, research is not so extensive. Ethnic inequalities in use of primary and secondary health services, and in outcomes of care, were examined in England.
Methods: Four waves of the Health Survey for England were analysed, a representative population survey with ethnic minority oversamples. Outcome measures included use of primary and secondary healthcare services and clinical outcomes of care (controlled, uncontrolled and undiagnosed) for three conditions – hypertension, raised cholesterol and diabetes.
Results: Ethnic minority respondents were not less likely to use GP services. For example, the adjusted odds ratios for Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi versus white respondents were 1.29 (95% confidence intervals 1.07 to 1.54), 1.32 (1.10 to 1.58) and 1.35 (1.10 to 1.65) respectively. Similarly, there were no ethnic inequalities for the clinical outcomes of care for hypertension and raised cholesterol, and, on the whole, no inequalities in outcomes of care for diabetes. There were ethnic inequalities in access to hospital services, and marked inequalities in use of dental care.
Conclusion: Ethnic inequalities in access to healthcare and the outcomes of care for three conditions (hypertension, raised cholesterol and diabetes), for which treatment is largely provided in primary care, appear to be minimal in England. Although inequalities may exist for other conditions and other healthcare settings, particularly internationally, the implication is that ethnic inequalities in healthcare are minimal within NHS primary care.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding Data collection for The Health Survey for England was funded by the Department of Health. The research reported here was unfunded.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval London Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee.
Contributions: All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study. PP, EF and JYN were involved in the data collection. All authors were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Statistical analysis was conducted by EF supported by JYN. JYN and EF drafted the manuscript; all authors were involved in critical revision of the manuscript.
EF had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. JYN is guarantor.
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.