ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Digital health economics education: perspectives, potential and barriers at German medical universities.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Education as an upstream social security intervention: constructing a competency-based talent development framework in health economics.Frontiers in public 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The increasing economization of healthcare systems highlights the need to integrate health economics more systematically into medical education. Objective: This study examines the perspectives of deans of German medical faculties on the integration of health economics content into medical studies. It also focuses on determining their ideas about suitable teaching formats and identifying potential obstacles to implementation. A particular and paradoxical finding of the study is the unanimous rejection of digital teaching formats by all participating faculties. Materials and methods: The pilot cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and October 2021. Deans and academic representatives from all 36 medical faculties in Germany were invited to participate. Data was collected using two specially developed standardized questionnaires with 24 questions. Results: A total of 28 medical faculties participated in the survey. 88% of respondents do not currently teach health economics, although 92% consider teaching health economics in medical studies to be important. The main obstacles cited are the lack of recognition as a medical discipline (96%), the absence of a conceptual curriculum (77%) and a lack of teaching capacity and financial resources (77 and 62% respectively). 81% see a conceptual curriculum as a prerequisite for national standardization. 38% call for interdisciplinary cooperation with health economics faculties.
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.