Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33668659›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

The Political Legitimacy of the Healthcare System in Portugal: Insights from the European Social Survey.

Maria Asensio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria AsensioCIES-IUL, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3559-1237
Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article investigates the political legitimacy of the health care system and the effects of austerity on the population's welfare, paying particular attention to Portugal, a country severely harmed by the economic crisis. Based on analysis of data collected from the European Social Survey on 14,988 individuals living in private households during the years between 2002 and 2018, the findings of this study aim to analyze the social and political perception of citizens on the state of health services in two distinctive periods-before and after the economic crisis, according to self-interest, ideological preferences, and institutional setup as predictors of the satisfaction with the health system. The results demonstrate a negative attitude towards the health system over the years, a consistent drop during the financial crisis period, and a rapid recovery afterward. The research also shows that healthcare evaluations depend on the perceived institutional effectiveness in the citizenry's eyes. The more the citizens perceive the government as effective and trust-worthy, the more they are satisfied with the health system. Also, differences in healthcare evaluations among social groups were felt unequally: while vulnerable citizens were more affected by the Government's plan of austerity measures for health reform, healthcare evaluations of better-off social groups-younger individuals, those with higher incomes, higher education, and better health status-did not decline. This study contributes to the academic debate on the effects of austerity on the population's welfare attitudes and highlights the need to examine the different impacts of reforms introduced by the crisis on social groups.

Indexed as

austerity measureshealthcarepolitical legitimacyPortugal

Identifiers

PMID33668659
PMCPMC7918246
OpenAlexW3133371038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.