ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
Ethical issues with geographical variations in the provision of health care services.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variations in general practitioners' referrals to low-value MRI examinations in Norway: A nationwide register-based study.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Causal Inference in Health Disparities Research.Annual review of public health · 2026Review
- Temporal and geographical variations of chest x-rays: A ten-year register study from Norway.Acta radiologica open · 2025Article
- Temporal and geographical variations in musculoskeletal imaging: a register-based study in Norway with focus on potential low-value imaging.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Catchment area characteristics do not account for geographical variation in ADHD diagnoses.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Article
- Evaluating Intervention Reporting in Nursing Journal RCTs Using the TIDieR Checklist: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Secundum atrial septal defect closure in adults in the UK.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of the Ethical Controversies in Separation Surgery of Conjoined Twins: A Review of the Literature.Cureus · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Geographical variations are documented for a wide range of health care services. As many such variations cannot be explained by demographical or epidemiological differences, they are problematic with respect to distributive justice, quality of care, and health policy. Despite much attention, geographical variations prevail. One reason for this can be that the ethical issues of geographical variations are rarely addressed explicitly. Accordingly, the objective of this article is to analyse the ethical aspects of geographical variations in the provision of health services. Applying a principlist approach the article identifies and addresses four specific ethical issues: injustice, harm, lack of beneficence, and paternalism. Then it investigates the normative leap from the description of geographical variations to the prescription of right care. Lastly, the article argues that professional approaches such as developing guidelines, checklists, appropriateness criteria, and standards of care are important measures when addressing geographical variations, but that such efforts should be accompanied and supported by ethical analysis. Hence, geographical variations are not only a healthcare provision, management, or a policy making problem, but an ethical one. Addressing the ethical issues with geographical variations is key for handling this crucial problem in the provision of health services.
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.