Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23903284›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of public health2014

Health technology assessment of utilization, practice and ethical issues of self-pay services in the German ambulatory health care setting.

Theresa Hunger, Petra Schnell-Inderst, Katharina Hintringer, Ruth Schwarzer, Vanadin Seifert-Klauss, Holger Gothe, Jürgen Wasem, Uwe Siebert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Theresa HungerDepartment of Public Health and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard Wallnoefer Center I, 6060, Hall i.T., Austria, t.hunger@umit.at.
Petra Schnell-Inderst
Katharina Hintringer
Ruth Schwarzer
Vanadin Seifert-Klauss
Holger Gothe
Jürgen Wasem
Uwe Siebert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe provision of self-pay medical services is common across health care systems, but understudied. According to the German Medical Association, such services should be medically necessary, recommended or at least justifiable, and requested by the patient. We investigated the empirical evidence regarding frequency and practice of self-pay services as well as related ethical, social, and legal issues (ELSI).

methodsA systematic literature search in electronic databases and a structured internet search on stakeholder websites with qualitative and quantitative information synthesis.

resultsOf 1,345 references, we included 64 articles. Between 19 and 53 % of insured persons received self-pay service offers from their physician; 16-19 % actively requested such services. Intraocular pressure measurement was the most common service, followed by ultrasound investigations. There is a major discussion about ELSI in the context of individual health services.

conclusionsSelf-pay services are common medical procedures in Germany. However, the empirical evidence is limited in quality and extent, even for the most frequently provided services. Transparency of their provision should be increased and independent evidence-based patient information should be supplied.

Indexed as

Financing, PersonalAdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCost SharingGermanyHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthMiddle AgedQuality of Health CareYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.