ArticlePloS one2021
Determination of gaps in the spatial accessibility of nursing services for persons over the age of 65 with lowered self-sufficiency: Evidence from the Czech Republic.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geospatial Insights into Healthcare Accessibility in Europe: A Scoping Review of GIS Applications.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Multiple Perspectives on the Adoption of SMART Technologies for Improving Care of Older People: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Optimal allocation of physicians improves accessibility and workload disparities in stroke care.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Towards an understanding of inequalities in accessing residential and nursing home provision: The role of geographical approaches.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The subject of this research is one of the main preconditions for the provision of high-quality social care services for people over the age of 65 with lowered self-sufficiency. It involves the spatial accessibility of formally established nursing services examined in 76 districts of the Czech Republic. The aim of this article is to identify and evaluate the gaps in spatial accessibility of the selected residential and outpatient-clinic services at the level of districts in individual regions of the Czech Republic in 2018. A three-phase analysis was performed, including an ArcGIS network analysis, multi-criteria evaluation according to the TOPSIS method, and a correlation analysis encompassing the confidence interval gained via the Bootstrap method. Seven indicators were selected-recipients of the allowance for the care, capacity of residential and outpatient-clinic services, and four indicators of accessibility via individual and public transport within the set time intervals. The results show good availability of residential care (no gap) within 30 min. by individual and public transport in most districts (94%). However, day services centers do not have a space gap in only 28% of districts by individual transport, and 8% of districts by public transport. In the case of day care centers, 54% of districts by individual transport, and 29% of districts by public transport do not have a space gap. The results also show that the level of spatial availability of care (gaps) in the district is not related to the number of people aged 65+ with reduced self-sufficiency in the district. On the contrary, the correlation analysis shows that with the growing number of people aged 65+ with reduced self-sufficiency in the district, the capacity of residential and outpatient services increases and the gaps in spatial accessibility do not decrease.
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.