ArticlePloS one2024
Beyond objective metrics: A comparative analysis of health care systems incorporating subjective dimensions to improve comparability of access and equity in healthcare assessments.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Online Information as a Double-Edged Sword: A Multilevel Analysis of Vaccination Skepticism Based on ISSP 2021.Journal of community health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparing health care systems is important for several reasons. E.g. lower-resource health care systems can learn from higher-resource ones, and country-specific progress can be made. Previous rankings of health care systems have been based on objective factors such as the number of available hospital beds or health care spending. An index is considered here that includes a subjective level that is intended to represent access to the health care system. Therefore, this study investigates the divergence between subjective and objective indices related to health care expenditure, with a focus on the influence of involuntary and voluntary payments. Utilizing the Rational Choice Theory as a framework, it explores how individual preferences and perceived benefits affect these indices. The analysis reveals that social insurance contributions, which are mandatory and beyond individual control, are evaluated differently in subjective indices compared to objective indices. This discrepancy is less pronounced for voluntary expenditures, where individuals have decision-making power. The findings highlight significant variations in the correlations between macroeconomic health care indicators and the indices, emphasizing the critical role of autonomy in financial decisions related to health care.
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.