Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40312309›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2025

Essential service accessibility and contribution to quality of life: a systematic review.

Sarah M Wood, Kira Page, Emma Baker, Hannah Beks, Marley J Binder, Marcus Blake, Vincent L Versace, Neil T Coffee

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

8 authors.

Sarah M WoodDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool Campus, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC, 3280, Australia. s.wood@deakin.edu.au.
Kira PageAustralian Centre for Housing Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Emma BakerAustralian Centre for Housing Research, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Hannah BeksInstitute for Health Transformation, Quality and Patient Safety, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC, Australia.
Marley J BinderDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool Campus, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC, 3280, Australia.
Marcus BlakeDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool Campus, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC, 3280, Australia.
Vincent L VersaceDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool Campus, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC, 3280, Australia.
Neil T CoffeeDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool Campus, PO Box 423, Warrnambool, VIC, 3280, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities grant LE220100028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEssential services ensure the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and their communities. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on what constitutes an essential service in Australia. This gap hinders a detailed spatial understanding of essential service provision, access, and influence on populations. This systematic review critically assessed the literature on essential services and their impact on quality of life to understand service definitions and their relative contributions to quality of life.

methodsA systematic search of ten databases was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. Five criteria were established for the inclusion of studies: (i) major developed economies, (ii) defined essential service and focus on spatial access, (iii) quality of life outcome, (iv) peer-reviewed, and (v) published between 2000 and 2024.

resultsFrom 1,473 unique records, seven studies met the inclusion criteria, with studies from Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America. Across the studies, services were characterised based on their primary function and contributions to quality of life. Service categories included food, retail, personal services, health, education, culture and recreation, and faith-based services. Despite demographic and scale variations, services that fostered social connection and a sense of place showed the highest positive impact on quality of life.

conclusionsFindings indicate limited and inconsistent evidence on essential service measures and their relationship with quality of life. The persistent lack of justification for classifying services as essential in research hinders definitive conclusions about which services most effectively enhance quality of life. Future research should adopt standardised, validated measures, and address representation gaps across diverse populations and regions. This work is fundamental for developing a validated set of essential services, to improve national modelling of geographic access and inform policy, decision-making, and understanding of how access to services influences quality of life.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityQuality of LifeAustraliaHumansAccessEssential servicesQoLQuality of lifeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40312309
PMCPMC12044902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.