ArticleBMC health services research2025
Comparative analysis of breast cancer care models and patient journeys across six European countries: implications for the Austrian healthcare system.
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. 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
introductionThe increasing prevalence of breast cancer is straining hospital-centred healthcare systems worldwide, including Austria’s. This study examined breast cancer care models across six European countries to identify alternative approaches for improving resource use and care delivery in Austria and other hospital-centred countries.
methodsA mixed-methods approach combined a scoping review with expert consultations (n=17) across Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The analysis mapped breast cancer patient journeys through five phases from diagnosis to follow-up care and compared healthcare infrastructures, service provision, and professional roles across different care settings. Expert consultations were conducted through online meetings (n=11) and written responses (n=6), with at least two experts from each country representing diverse professional backgrounds.
resultsThree care models were identified: (1) Centralised Specialist Model with accredited centres and strict volume requirements (Austria, Denmark, Belgium); (2) Decentralised Model utilising certified hospitals with national quality standards (Germany); and (3) Network-based Model combining specialist centres with regional facilities (Netherlands, Sweden). The models showed significant differences in surgical settings, with Sweden performing procedures exclusively in outpatient settings, while Austria and Germany relied on inpatient care. Care coordination mechanisms varied substantially, from Sweden’s mandatory contact nurses to Germany’s strong outpatient oncologist networks. All models maintained quality through regulation and accreditation but differed significantly in their approach to accessibility, cross-sectoral coordination, and resource allocation.
conclusionFindings indicate opportunities for hospital-centred healthcare systems to optimise cancer care through strategic integration of centralised and network-based elements. Success factors include addressing workforce shortages, particularly among specialised nurses, enhancing data integration, and strengthening cross-sectoral coordination. Implementing hybrid care models that combine centralised expertise with distributed service delivery could significantly improve both the efficiency and accessibility of breast cancer care across different healthcare systems, while accounting for specific national contexts and existing infrastructures.
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.