ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A New Tool for Determining and Monitoring Public Healthcare Systems.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- The causal configurations of provincial health policy innovation in China: an analysis of the food safety standard filing policy.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
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
Abstract
The challenge of maintaining a standard of treatment has become a core issue due to the COVID-19 outbreak, and many countries are currently addressing this issue. Since public health policymaking is a multidimensional issue, including different aspects, measures, features, and scales, and so forth, multidimensional definitions of reasonable medical treatments may improve planning and performance standards for public health systems. This study emphasizes the need to settle all of the dimensions in policymaking to aim to elicit reasonable medical treatment definitions and adequacy assessments from diverse healthcare stakeholders and offer a universally applicable reasonable medical treatment formula. Interviews of thirty-two stakeholders were qualitatively analyzed and mapped onto an innovative quadrilateral model. The findings showed that most interviewees viewed the system positively. However, they identified various lacunas-clinical/service, social/ethical, legal, and economically reasonable medical treatment aspects. A generic formula for the medical sub-services' activity accounted for these, given any specific time period and technological development. The stakeholders' positive assessment reflects an acquiescence for resource allocation and policy enforcement, rather than optimal healthcare. Nationally, this should be addressed. The quadrilateral mapping of the stakeholders enhances the translatability and generalizability of the systemic data. A comprehensive reasonable medical treatment formula will help the policymakers to optimize services, and it will render healthcare planning/implementation transparent, effective, and responsible.
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.