Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38041129›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of health geographics2023

Gravity models for potential spatial healthcare access measurement: a systematic methodological review.

Barbara Stacherl, Odile Sauzet

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of health geographics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Spatial health data and scientific standards for their analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Barbara StacherlSocio-Economic Panel (SOEP), German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Mohrenstraße 58, 11017, Berlin, Germany.
Odile SauzetSchool of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany. odile.sauzet@uni-bielefeld.de.
Bielefeld University · DEGerman Institute for Economic Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantifying spatial access to care-the interplay of accessibility and availability-is vital for healthcare planning and understanding implications of services (mal-)distribution. A plethora of methods aims to measure potential spatial access to healthcare services. The current study conducts a systematic review to identify and assess gravity model-type methods for spatial healthcare access measurement and to summarize the use of these measures in empirical research.

methodsA two-step approach was used to identify (1) methodological studies that presented a novel gravity model for measuring spatial access to healthcare and (2) empirical studies that applied one of these methods in a healthcare context. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched in the first step. Forward citation search was used in the second step.

resultsWe identified 43 studies presenting a methodological development and 346 empirical application cases of those methods in 309 studies. Two major conceptual developments emerged: The Two-Step Floating Catchment Area (2SFCA) method and the Kernel Density (KD) method. Virtually all other methodological developments evolved from the 2SFCA method, forming the 2SFCA method family. Novel methodologies within the 2SFCA family introduced developments regarding distance decay within the catchment area, variable catchment area sizes, outcome unit, provider competition, local and global distance decay, subgroup-specific access, multiple transportation modes, and time-dependent access. Methodological developments aimed to either approximate reality, fit a specific context, or correct methodology. Empirical studies almost exclusively applied methods from the 2SFCA family while other gravity model types were applied rarely. Distance decay within catchment areas was frequently implemented in application studies, however, the initial 2SFCA method remains common in empirical research. Most empirical studies used the spatial access measure for descriptive purposes. Increasingly, gravity model measures also served as potential explanatory factor for health outcomes.

conclusionsGravity models for measuring potential spatial healthcare access are almost exclusively dominated by the family of 2SFCA methods-both for methodological developments and applications in empirical research. While methodological developments incorporate increasing methodological complexity, research practice largely applies gravity models with straightforward intuition and moderate data and computational requirements.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityCatchment Area, HealthHumans2SFCAGravity modelsHealthcareKernel densityMethodological reviewPotential spatial accessSpatial access measurement

Identifiers

PMID38041129
PMCPMC10693160
OpenAlexW4389248478

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.