Language-concordant care, or healthcare in one’s preferred language, is important both for health equity and for improving health outcomes. Linguistic minorities, like Francophones in Ontario, Canada, are at risk of poorer clinical outcomes if they receive non-language-concordant primary care. However, common ratio-based access measures can provide misleading views of minorities’ actual access levels. This cross-sectional geospatial study demonstrates a new way to measure primary care access using average travel time to the nearest five English- and French-speaking family physicians. We also introduce the concept of primary care access fragility, where a region’s primary care access may depend on one or a few local family physicians. Our research question is: are there differences in travel burden and access fragility for census subdivisions (CSDs) across language (English/French), rurality (urban/rural) and region (north/south) in the province of Ontario, Canada?

We conducted a cross-sectional geospatial analysis to estimate English-language and French-language primary care travel burdens and access fragility in Ontario, Canada. We used population and boundary data from Statistics Canada’s 2021 census, road-network data from OpenStreetMaps, and family physician practice locations and language abilities from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. We measured travel burden using Valhalla, an open-source road-network analysis platform.

We conducted our analysis for Ontario, Canada’s 577 CSDs, which correspond roughly to municipalities and with populations ranging from 5 inhabitants in Rainy Lake 17B to a high of 2 794 356 in Toronto.

Using public data from January 2026, we identified 15 762 family physicians practising in Ontario, of whom 11.0% reported speaking French. Patient data were obtained from the most recent 2021 census.

Our first primary outcome measures were CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest five English-speaking family physicians, and CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest five French-speaking family physicians, which we compared to explore regional inequities in travel burden. Our secondary outcome measures were based on a novel notion of the travel burden component of ‘primary care access fragility’. This metric indicates how dependent a region’s access is on a small number of local physicians and is defined as the difference between the CSD-level mean travel time to the nearest one physician and to the nearest five physicians. As the difference in travel times grows, so too does access fragility.

Median differences in French-language and English-language travel burdens were strongly significant across rurality, regions and overall (median difference 13.4 min, p

Compared with the general public, Ontario’s French-speakers face higher travel burdens to language-concordant family physicians and higher access fragility, especially in rural and northern regions. Our results are of interest to policymakers and health-system planners, and our methods are applicable to other populations and regions.

Providing care in a patient’s preferred language improves health outcomes and patient satisfaction. In Ontario, access to French-speaking physicians (FSPs) is estimated using FSP-to-Francophone population ratios and compared with total physician-to-total population ratios. This approach fails to consider the fact that FSPs also serve non-Francophone patients and that Francophones must compete with the entire population to access FSPs. As a result, this approach inaccurately suggests that Francophones have better access to language-concordant care than Anglophones/Allophones. We propose a novel approach to address this issue, enabling unbiased comparisons of access to language-concordant care across linguistic groups.

This secondary analysis of publicly available data containing linguistic variables for the Ontario population (Statistics Canada, 2021 Census) and for family physicians (FPs) (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, January 2024) calculated competition-adjusted ratios and probabilities of accessing language-concordant care.

Ontario, Canada.

Census and publicly available data on FPs (ie, those providing comprehensive family medicine care to the community) and the Ontario population were obtained.

Province-wide, the crude ratio of FSPs per 1000 Francophones was 3.46. After adjusting for competition, the ratio of FSP per 1000 population was 0.12, compared with a general physicians-per-1000 population ratio of 1.05. Anglophones/Allophones attached to a FP have a 100% probability of receiving care in English compared with an 11.4% probability for Francophones to receive care from a FSP. Expressed otherwise, Anglophones/Allophones are 8.8 times more likely to receive language-concordant care (ie, care in English) than Francophones.

Although crude physician-to-population ratios overestimate Francophones’ access to FSPs, competition-adjusted ratios and probabilities demonstrate that they are much less likely to access language-concordant care than Anglophones/Allophones. This novel approach has equity implications for health human resources planning and can be applied to other linguistic minority groups and healthcare providers.

The objective of this scoping review is to map and synthesise existing literature on interventions aimed at promoting healthy screen use among adolescents. This review identifies the types, functions and settings of interventions, explores the diversity of targeted outcomes and highlights equity considerations and research gaps.

We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

We systematically searched Medline, PsycINFO and ERIC from January 2013 to June 2024. Reference lists of included studies were also manually screened.

We included peer-reviewed experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and qualitative studies reporting on interventions designed to promote healthy screen use among adolescents aged 10–19 years.

One author extracted data using a structured charting form, and a second author verified all entries. Results were synthesised descriptively across key themes including target populations, theoretical frameworks, intervention components and reported outcomes.

From 6433 records, we identified 93 articles on 81 interventions, mainly conducted in high school settings in the USA and Australia. Most examined short-term interventions targeting recreational screen time. Outcomes included media literacy, cyberbullying, internet and gaming addiction, safe internet use, social media use and mental and sexual health. Seventy-eight per cent of interventions attempted to educate adolescents, while 34% offered training activities (eg, educational sessions to elevate risk awareness and skill-based training to enhance digital literacy and self-regulation). Interventions targeting external influences were used less frequently. About 20% of studies showed no statistically significant findings, highlighting the need to promote evidence-based interventions.

This review identifies a need for broader, multilevel strategies that account for contextual factors and social determinants in influencing screen use and its related health issues. Future research should explore long-term effectiveness while examining the potential moderating and mediating effects of social determinants. Equity considerations were not a primary focus of most interventions, underscoring an important gap in this literature. Future interventions could incorporate equity-focused design and evaluation to ensure they respond to the needs of diverse adolescent populations.