ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2018
[Employed and self-employed specialists in outpatient ophthalmological care : Comparison with other specialist fields].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Set them free! Better care for more patients with fewer follow-ups].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the study was to evaluate the contribution to outpatient care and the perspectives of employed and self-employed ophthalmologists in isolation and in comparison to other professional groups.
methodBased on statistical data (source: statistical information provided by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians) from 31 December 2015, newly admitted physicians in 2015 and their contribution differentiated by employment relationships were evaluated according to head count and working time equivalents (using "planning of demand equivalents"). The results were subdivided into type of outpatient facility, e.g. single practice, group practice and medical care centers (MVZ).
resultsThe proportion of employed ophthalmologists (head count) in outpatient care (23%) and newly admitted physicians (81%) is above the interdisciplinary average (16% and 65%, respectively). In all medical professional groups the contribution according to time equivalents of employed physicians compared to self-employed physicians is lower (utilization rate: 65% in total and 70% in ophthalmology). In ophthalmology employment is seen in all types of outpatient practices: the number of ophthalmologists working in group practices is above average, compared to other groups they are underrepresented in MVZ and are working in single practices as frequently as all other specialties. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionEmployment of physicians is more common in all types of outpatient ophthalmological facilities than in other specialized professional groups. Possible reasons are the working conditions in ophthalmology attracting physicians preferring employment and the competitive situation for practice takeover. Since employed physicians contribute less time to medical care than self-employed physicians, ophthalmology has a higher risk of a shortage in medical care despite an increasing number of physicians. An increasing number of employed physicians has an impact on the structures of outpatient care; however, the intensity of concentration in healthcare structures can only be partially evaluated due to insufficient data. Based on the available data there is no end in sight for the trend towards employment in outpatient ophthalmological care.
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.