ArticlePloS one2017
Orthopedic workforce planning in Germany - an analysis of orthopedic accessibility.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying spatial accessibility of general practitioners by applying a modified huff three-step floating catchment area (MH3SFCA) method.International journal of health geographics · 2021Article
- Forecasting maldistribution of human resources for healthcare and patients in Japan: a utilization-based approach.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
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
In Germany, orthopedic workforce planning relies on population-to-provider-ratios represented by the 'official degree of care provision'. However, with geographic information systems (GIS), more sophisticated measurements are available. By utilizing GIS-based technologies we analyzed the current state of demand and supply of the orthopedic workforce in Germany (orthopedic accessibility) with the integrated Floating Catchment Area method. The analysis of n = 153,352,220 distances revealed significant geographical variations on national scale: 5,617,595 people (6.9% of total population) lived in an area with significant low orthopedic accessibility (average z-score = -4.0), whereas 31,748,161 people (39.0% of total population) lived in an area with significant high orthopedic accessibility (average z-score = 8.0). Accessibility was positively correlated with the degree of urbanization (r = 0.49; p<0.001) and the official degree of care provision (r = 0.33; p<0.001) and negatively correlated with regional social deprivation (r = -0.47; p<0.001). Despite advantages of simpler measures regarding implementation and acceptance in health policy, more sophisticated measures of accessibility have the potential to reduce costs as well as improve health care. With this study, significant geographical variations were revealed that show the need to reduce oversupply in less deprived urban areas in order to enable adequate care in more deprived rural areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.