Tackling health inequalities in primary care: an exploration of GPs’ experience at the frontline

In Scotland, life expectancy and health outcomes are strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived areas suffer disproportionately from high levels of premature multimorbidity and mortality. To tackle these inequalities in health, challenges in the most deprived areas must be addressed. One avenue that merits attention is the potential role of general medical practitioners (GPs) in helping to address health inequalities, particularly due to their long-term presence in deprived communities, their role in improving patient and population health, and their potential advocacy role on behalf of their patients. GPs can be seen as what Lipsky calls ‘street-level bureaucrats’ due to their considerable autonomy in the decisions they make surrounding individual patient needs, yet practising under the bureaucratic structure of the NHS. While previous research has examined the applicability of Lipsky’s framework to the role of GPs, there has been very little research exploring how GPs negotiate between the multiple identities in their work, how GPs ‘socially construct’ their patients, how GPs view their potential role as ‘advocate’, and what this means in terms of the contribution of GPs to addressing existing inequalities in health. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the experience and views of 24 GPs working in some of Scotland’s most deprived practices to understand how they might combat this growing health divide via the mitigation (and potential prevention) of existing health inequalities. Participants were selected based on several criteria including practice deprivation level and their individual involvement in the Deep End project, which is an informal network comprising the 100 most deprived general practices in Scotland. The research focused on understanding GPs’ perceptions of their work including its broader implications, within their practice, the communities within which they practise, and the health system as a whole. The concept of street-level bureaucracy proved to be useful in understanding GPs’ frontline work and how they negotiate dilemmas. However, this research demonstrated the need to look beyond Lipsky’s framework in order to understand how GPs reconcile their multiple identities, including advocate and manager. As a result, the term ‘street-level professional’ is offered to capture more fully the multiple identities which GPs inhabit and to explain how GPs’ elite status positions them to engage in political and policy advocacy. This study also provides evidence that GPs’ social constructions of patients are linked not only to how GPs conceptualise the causes of health inequalities, but also to how they view their role in tackling them. In line with this, the interviews established that many GPs felt they could make a difference through advocacy efforts at individual, community and policy/political levels. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the importance of practitioner-led groups—such as the Deep End project—in supporting GPs’ efforts and providing a platform for their advocacy. Within this study, a range of GPs’ views have been explored based on the sample. While it is unclear how common these views are amongst GPs in general, the study revealed that there is considerable scope for ‘political GPs’ who choose to exercise discretion in their communities and beyond. Consequently, GPs working in deprived areas should be encouraged to use their professional status and political clout not only to strengthen local communities, but also to advocate for policy change that might potentially affect the degree of disadvantage of their patients, and levels of social and health inequalities more generally.

Endemic zoonoses: a one health approach

Endemic zoonotic diseases remain a serious but poorly recognised problem in affected communities in developing countries. Despite the overall burden of zoonoses on human and animal health, information about their impacts in endemic settings is lacking and most of these diseases are continuously being neglected. The non-specific clinical presentation of these diseases has been identified as a major challenge in their identification (even with good laboratory diagnosis), and control. The signs and symptoms in animals and humans respectively, are easily confused with other non-zoonotic diseases, leading to widespread misdiagnosis in areas where diagnostic capacity is limited. The communities that are mostly affected by these diseases live in close proximity with their animals which they depend on for livelihood, which further complicates the understanding of the epidemiology of zoonoses. This thesis reviewed the pattern of reporting of zoonotic pathogens that cause febrile illness in malaria endemic countries, and evaluates the recognition of animal associations among other risk factors in the transmission and management of zoonoses. The findings of the review chapter were further investigated through a laboratory study of risk factors for bovine leptospirosis, and exposure patterns of livestock coxiellosis in the subsequent chapters. A review was undertaken on 840 articles that were part of a bigger review of zoonotic pathogens that cause human fever. The review process involves three main steps: filtering and reference classification, identification of abstracts that describe risk factors, and data extraction and summary analysis of data. Abstracts of the 840 references were transferred into a Microsoft excel spread sheet, where several subsets of abstracts were generated using excel filters and text searches to classify the content of each abstract. Data was then extracted and summarised to describe geographical patterns of the pathogens reported, and determine the frequency animal related risk factors were considered among studies that investigated risk factors for zoonotic pathogen transmission. Subsequently, a seroprevalence study of bovine leptospirosis in northern Tanzania was undertaken in the second chapter of this thesis. The study involved screening of serum samples, which were obtained from an abattoir survey and cross-sectional study (Bacterial Zoonoses Project), for antibodies against Leptospira serovar Hardjo. The data were analysed using generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs), to identify risk factors for cattle infection. The final chapter was the analysis of Q fever data, which were also obtained from the Bacterial Zoonoses Project, to determine exposure patterns across livestock species using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). Leptospira spp. (10.8%, 90/840) and Rickettsia spp. (10.7%, 86/840) were identified as the most frequently reported zoonotic pathogens that cause febrile illness, while Rabies virus (0.4%, 3/840) and Francisella spp. (0.1%, 1/840) were least reported, across malaria endemic countries. The majority of the pathogens were reported in Asia, and the frequency of reporting seems to be higher in areas where outbreaks are mostly reported. It was also observed that animal related risk factors are not often considered among other risk factors for zoonotic pathogens that cause human fever in malaria endemic countries. The seroprevalence study indicated that Leptospira serovar Hardjo is widespread in cattle population in northern Tanzania, and animal husbandry systems and age are the two most important risk factors that influence seroprevalence. Cattle in the pastoral systems and adult cattle were significantly more likely to be seropositive compared to non-pastoral and young animals respectively, while there was no significant effect of cattle breed or sex. Exposure patterns of Coxiella burnetii appear different for each livestock species. While most risk factors were identified for goats (such as animal husbandry systems, age and sex) and sheep (animal husbandry systems and sex), there were none for cattle. In addition, there was no evidence of a significant influence of mixed livestock-keeping on animal coxiellosis. Zoonotic agents that cause human fever are common in developing countries. The role of animals in the transmission of zoonotic pathogens that cause febrile illness is not fully recognised and appreciated. Since Leptospira spp. and C. burnetii are among the most frequently reported pathogens that cause human fever across malaria endemic countries, and are also prevalent in livestock population, control and preventive measures that recognise animals as source of infection would be very important especially in livestock-keeping communities where people live in close proximity with their animals.