ArticleInternational journal of public health2014
Health inequalities and regional specific scarcity in primary care physicians: ethical issues and criteria.
Article in International journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Addressing the crisis of GP recruitment and retention: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
- Moral Risk in the Behavior of Doctors of the Comprehensive Health Insurance in the Province of San Román, Puno-Peru, 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Workforce crisis in primary healthcare worldwide: Hungarian example in a longitudinal follow-up study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Unequal socioeconomic distribution of the primary care workforce: whole-population small area longitudinal study.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Explaining health inequalities: the role of space and time.International journal of public health · 2014Article
- Global health ethics: an introduction to prominent theories and relevant topics.Global health action · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA substantial body of evidence supports the beneficial health impact of an increase in primary care physicians for underserved populations. However, given that in many countries primary care physician shortages persist, what options are available to distribute physicians and how can these be seen from an ethical perspective?
methodsA literature review was performed on the topic of primary care physician distribution. An ethical discussion of conceivable options for decision makers that applied prominent theories of ethics was held.
resultsExamples of distributing primary care physicians were categorised into five levels depending upon levels of incentive or coercion. When analysing these options through theories of ethics, contrasting, and even controversial, moral issues were identified. However, the different morally salient criteria identified are of prima facie value for decision makers.
conclusionsThe discussion provides clear criteria for decision makers to consider when addressing primary care physician shortages. Yet, decision makers will still need to assess specific situations by these criteria to ensure that any decisions they make are morally justifiable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23880912What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.