Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40346516›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Rural and urban disparities in access and quality of healthcare in the Japanese healthcare system: a scoping review.

Makoto Kaneko, Ryuichi Ohta, Maria Mathews

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Blood pressure status, JSH 2019-based control rate, and associated factors among community-dwelling adults: The NOSE study.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Makoto KanekoDepartment of Health Data Science, Yokohama City University, 22-2, Seto, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0027, Japan. kanekom@yokohama-cu.ac.jp.
Ryuichi OhtaDepartment of Community Care, Unnan City Hospital, 699-1221 96-1 Iida, Daito-Cho, Unnan, Shimane, Japan.
Maria MathewsDepartment of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

the JSPS KAKENHI 24K02670
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rural-urban disparity in healthcare quality is a global issue. Compared with living in urban areas, living in rural areas is associated with poorer healthcare outcomes. Moreover, the shortage of healthcare providers in rural areas is a worldwide concern. This scoping review aims to map existing evidence regarding rural-urban disparities in access and quality of healthcare in Japan using the Donabedian model as a theoretical framework and to identify conceptual and measurement gaps.

methodsThis review targeted published articles and gray literature. We included documents that (1) were based on Japanese populations and (2) compared the quality of care between defined rural and urban areas. We excluded articles if they (1) were published during or before 2005 since the Japanese government amended the Medical Care Law in 2006; (2) focused exclusively on urban or rural areas; or (3) were not published in English or Japanese. This study employed PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Japanese medical literature database, ICHUSHI, and CiNii Research. We extracted quality indicators (structure, process, and outcomes) based on the Donabedian model. We recorded the definitions or indicators of rurality described by the studies.

resultsOut of 5,020 articles, 15 were included. Only one study was conducted in a primary care setting. Moreover, no study evaluated the "outcomes" of the Donabedian model in a primary care setting. Regarding the definitions or indices of rurality, the most commonly used indicator of rurality was population size, followed by population density. The cutoff values or descriptions of rurality using these indicators differed across studies.

conclusionThis study mapped rural-urban disparities in access and quality of healthcare in Japan. These findings highlight the need to evaluate rural-urban disparities in the "outcomes" of care in primary care settings in Japan and the lack of common indicators of rurality.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityQuality of Health CareRural Health ServicesRural PopulationUrban Health ServicesUrban PopulationEast Asian PeopleHumansJapanQuality Indicators, Health CareHealthcareJapaneseRurality indexRural-urbanScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40346516
PMCPMC12063375

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.