Journal article
UK newspapers 'on the warpath': media analysis of general practice remote consulting in 2021
- Abstract:
-
Background Following a large-scale, pandemic-driven shift to remote consulting in UK general practice in 2020, 2021 saw a partial return to in-person consultations. This occurred in the context of extreme workload pressures because of backlogs, staff shortages, and task shifting.
Aim To study media depictions of remote consultations in UK general practice at a time of system stress.
Design and setting Thematic analysis of national newspaper articles about remote GP consultations from two time periods: 13–26 May 2021, following an NHS England letter, and 14–27 October 2021, following a government-backed directive, both stipulating a return to in-person consulting.
Method Articles were identified through, and retrieved from, LexisNexis. A coding system of themes and narrative devices was developed iteratively to inform data analysis.
Results In total, 25 articles reported on the letter and 75 on the directive. Newspaper coverage of remote consulting was strikingly negative. The right-leaning press in particular praised the return to in-person consultations, depicting remote care as creating access barriers and compromising safety. Two newspapers led national campaigns pressuring the government to require GPs to offer in-person consultations. GPs were quoted as reluctant to return to an ‘in-person by default’ service (as it would further pressurise a system already close to breaking point).
Conclusion Remote consultations have become associated in the media with poor practice. Some newspapers were actively leading the ‘war’ on general practice rather than merely reporting on it. Proactive dialogue between practitioners and the media might help minimise polarisation and improve perceptions around general practice.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 117.7KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.3399/bjgp.2022.0258
Authors
- Funder identifier:
- https://ror.org/029chgv08
- Grant:
- 104830/Z/14/Z
- Funder identifier:
- https://ror.org/001aqnf71
- Grant:
- ES/V010069/1
- Funder identifier:
- https://ror.org/0187kwz08
- Grant:
- NIHR132807
- Publisher:
- Royal College of General Practitioners
- Journal:
- British Journal of General Practice More from this journal
- Volume:
- 72
- Issue:
- 725
- Pages:
- e907-e915
- Publication date:
- 2022-11-24
- Acceptance date:
- 2022-07-25
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1478-5242
- ISSN:
-
0960-1643
- Pmid:
-
36192357
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1278663
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1278663
- Deposit date:
-
2024-11-11
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Mroz et al.
- Copyright date:
- 2022
- Rights statement:
- © The Authors. This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).
- Licence:
- CC Attribution (CC BY)
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record