Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
BJGP Open
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
Practice & Policy

Reconsidering the Levesque framework: a social work perspective for healthcare professionals

Daisuke Nishioka
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2022.0055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0055
Daisuke Nishioka
1 Department of Medical Statistics, Research & Development Center, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Osaka, Japan
2 Department of Social Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
3 Miyama Rinken-Center Clinic, Kyoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daisuke Nishioka
  • For correspondence: daisuke.nishioka@ompu.ac.jp
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
  • Primary healthcare
  • General practice
  • Social work
  • Social determinants of health
  • Implicit bias

Potential barriers to access primary care

Social backgrounds affect people’s health and health behaviour.1 Factors such as gender, marital status, race and/or ethnicity, nationality, income, education, job status, or social relationships are known as social determinants of health. Recently, healthcare professionals have been required to consider patients’ social determinants and to address issues to improve the care of patients.2

These social determinants of health can also prevent patients’ access to primary care. According to Levesque et al, there are multiple barriers that people need to overcome to access primary care.3 The conceptual diagram which Levesque and colleagues previously summarised shows that the barriers include: ‘Approachability‘, ‘Acceptability‘, ‘Availability and accommodation‘, ’Affordability’, and ’Appropriateness’. To overcome the barriers, patients need to demonstrate their capabilities, which were summarised as ‘Ability to perceive‘, ‘Ability to seek‘, ‘Ability to reach‘, ‘Ability to pay‘, and ‘Ability to engage‘. Both barriers and capabilities are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1. The conceptual diagram of the barriers and abilities required to achieve the benefits of primary care. Source: Levesque et al 3

Patients in front of us have the strength to overcome the barriers

The conceptual diagram can also be considered from the perspective of social work: we can regard the patient before us, who has accessed primary care and received care, as having the strength to demonstrate their capabilities and overcome the barriers to healthcare access. This perspective, known as a ‘strength model‘, is well known and utilised in the field of social work.4

However, healthcare professionals sometimes stigmatise socially vulnerable patients in clinical settings, being prejudiced against those patients capable of reaching primary care because of an unconscious implicit bias that is embedded in our daily practice.5 Once a patient is stigmatised by healthcare professionals, their power to overcome the barriers reduces due to discouragement, resulting in the state of ’powerlessness‘. Once the person became powerless due to stigma, they are being effectively excluded from the society.6 Consequently, the patients will be unable to access to primary care. This state is known as ’social withdrawal‘ and represents one of the coping skills of patients employ to avoid being stigmatised repeatedly.7 Such withdrawal may mean that the physician no longer sees the patient, leading to increased marginalisation.

If we learn from the social work perspective, we may be able to prevent this unfavourable consequence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals. Biestek‘s basic principles of social work include individualisation, purposeful expression of feelings, controlled emotional involvement, acceptance, non-judgmental attitude, client self-determination, and confidentiality.8 As we have seen, patients who could attain access to primary care had the strength to demonstrate their capabilities to overcome multiple barriers. We, as healthcare professionals, do not have the authority to judge an individual patient’s background. It is important to accept the process that has led the person to seek medical care support. Healthcare professionals have been reported to be one of the sources of patients’ stigma.9 Because stigma is a known health risk10 that can arise from healthcare professionals’ prejudice embedded in everyday life, it is important for healthcare professionals to be aware of their own implicit biases.5 Approaches utilised in social work, introduced above, may reduce the barriers faced by patients needing primary healthcare access, and may strengthen their capabilities. In recognising these concepts and their applicability to primary care, healthcare professionals may be able to encounter, with ‘fresh eyes’, a marginalised patient who had been prevented access to primary care due to their social determinants.

Notes

Funding

This commentary was emerged from the study supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI grants (grant number: 21K21127).

Ethical approval

N/A

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Acknowledgments

This commentary was presented and discussed within the 17th Winter Seminar of Japan Primary Care Association. The author thanks the discussants and listeners for this opportunity to strengthen the concept. The author also thanks Editage [http://www.editage.com] for editing and reviewing this manuscript.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work

  • Received April 18, 2022.
  • Revision received April 18, 2022.
  • Accepted June 16, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Marmot M,
    2. Friel S,
    3. Bell R,
    4. Houweling TAJ,
    5. et al.
    (2008) Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 372 (9650):1661–1669, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6, pmid:18994664.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Daniel H,
    2. Bornstein SS,
    3. Kane GC,
    4. Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians,
    5. et al.
    (2018) Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: an American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med 168 (8):577–578, doi:10.7326/M17-2441, pmid:29677265.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Levesque JF,
    2. Harris MF,
    3. Russell G
    (2013) Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health 12 (1):1–9, doi:10.1186/1475-9276-12-18, pmid:23496984. 18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Saleebey D
    (1996) The strengths perspective in social work practice: extensions and cautions. Soc Work 41 (3):296–305, pmid:8936085.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. FitzGerald C,
    2. Hurst S
    (2017) Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics 18 (1):1–18, doi:10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8, pmid:28249596. 19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lister R
    (2008) Inclusive citizenship, gender and poverty: some implications for education for citizenship. Citizenship Teaching and Learning 4 (1):3–19.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tobin DL,
    2. Holroyd KA,
    3. Reynolds RV,
    4. Wigal JK,
    5. et al.
    (1989) The hierarchical factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cogn Ther Res 13 (4):343–361, doi:10.1007/BF01173478.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Biestek FP
    (1957) The casework relationship (Loyola University Press, Chicago, IL).
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schabert J,
    2. Browne JL,
    3. Mosely K,
    4. Speight J,
    5. et al.
    (2013) Social stigma in diabetes. Patient 6 (1):1–10, doi:10.1007/s40271-012-0001-0, pmid:23322536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hatzenbuehler ML,
    2. Phelan JC,
    3. Link BG
    (2013) Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Am J Public Health 103 (5):813–821, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301069, pmid:23488505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 6, Issue 3
September 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reconsidering the Levesque framework: a social work perspective for healthcare professionals
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reconsidering the Levesque framework: a social work perspective for healthcare professionals
Daisuke Nishioka
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2022.0055. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0055

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reconsidering the Levesque framework: a social work perspective for healthcare professionals
Daisuke Nishioka
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (3): BJGPO.2022.0055. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0055
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Potential barriers to access primary care
    • Patients in front of us have the strength to overcome the barriers
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • primary healthcare
  • general practice
  • Social work
  • social determinants of health
  • Implicit bias

More in this TOC Section

  • Like, comment, subscribe: How journal editors can navigate social media competing interests
  • The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2022: an editorial
  • Telehealth and primary care: a special collection from BJGP Open
Show more Practice & Policy

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2023 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795