ArticleJPRAS open2025
Health inequalities in access to keloid scar surgery: An analysis of funding criteria and their impact across England.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Keloid scars, which are significantly more common in ethnic minorities, are challenging to treat in England because of funding policies. Overly restrictive funding criteria can have a disproportionate adverse effect on those most prone to keloid, resulting in health inequality. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated the regional variations in funding criteria for keloid scar surgery across the 42 integrated care boards (ICBs) of England and, through Freedom of Information requests, the number of corresponding applications and approvals in 2023. Potential associations with the Black, Asian and minority ethnic composition of ICB populations were explored. Results: Funding criteria were highly restrictive across all ICBs. Keloid scar surgery applications were almost universally low, with some ICBs reporting <5 or no applications. Acceptance rates were generally low. There was no significant overall correlation between the ethnic proportion of ICBs' populations and number of applications or approval rates. Conclusions: Our findings confirmed that access to keloid surgery is highly restricted nationwide, a situation that likely disproportionately disadvantages the ethnic minorities. The near total lack of ethnicity data collection by ICBs obstructs the full characterisation of this issue. We propose exempting keloids from funding restrictions or at least revising the criteria to account for their symptomatic and psychosocial impact, to help achieve more equitable healthcare policies.
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.