Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341570›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in health services2025

Bridging healthcare disparities: a systematic review of healthcare access for disabled individuals in rural and urban areas.

Amer Mesmar, Godfrey Mbaabu Limungi, Mohammed Elmadani, Klara Simon, Osama Hamad, Livia Tóth, Eva Horvath, Orsolya Mate

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amer MesmarDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Godfrey Mbaabu LimungiDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Mohammed ElmadaniDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Klara SimonDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Osama HamadDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Livia TóthDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Eva HorvathDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Orsolya MateDoctoral School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This review will examine existing research to compare the differences in healthcare access for people with disabilities in rural vs. urban areas. The goal is to identify common obstacles and helpful factors that affect their ability to get healthcare, which can inform the creation of specific programs to close these gaps. Methods: This systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42025648258). A comprehensive search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2024. Studies were included if they addressed healthcare access for disabled individuals and made comparisons between rural and urban settings. Data extraction was performed using standardized forms, and quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data synthesis involved a narrative synthesis and thematic analysis to identify key barriers and facilitators to healthcare access in rural and urban areas. The reporting of this review follows the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Eight studies from Peru, China, the United States, Mozambique, and South Africa were included in the final review. A clear distinction emerged between the barriers to healthcare access in rural and urban areas. Rural settings were defined by infrastructure-related challenges, such as transportation difficulties, a lower number of healthcare facilities, and limited provider availability. Meanwhile, urban areas presented different barriers, including overcrowded facilities and extended wait times. Both settings struggled with socioeconomic disparities, but the specific barriers and facilitators varied. In rural areas, telemedicine and mobile clinics were identified as key facilitators, while in urban areas, specialized healthcare services and better public transportation were the most helpful in bridging access gaps. Conclusion: This systematic review confirms that disabled individuals face significant, yet distinct, healthcare access disparities depending on their location. In rural areas, the primary barriers are transportation and a lack of facilities, which necessitates the development of community-specific solutions such as mobile clinics and expanded telemedicine. In urban settings, access is hindered by system overcrowding and socioeconomic divides, calling for interventions that improve public transportation access and address systemic inequalities. Ultimately, addressing these disparities requires a dual approach: empowering rural communities with technological and logistical support while simultaneously optimizing urban healthcare systems to be more accessible and equitable. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025648258, PROSPERO CRD42025648258.

Indexed as

disabilityequity in healthcarehealthcare accesshealthcare barriershealth disparitiesrural healthtelemedicineurban health

Identifiers

PMID41341570
PMCPMC12669211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.