ArticleJournal of Yeungnam medical science2026
Comparing emergency medical system governance in Japan and South Korea: lessons for high-income countries from a multisource comparative health systems analysis.
Article in Journal of Yeungnam medical science, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJapan and South Korea, two advanced East Asian nations with universal health coverage and similar demographic challenges, have developed markedly different emergency medical services (EMS) systems. Despite growing interest in international benchmarking, structured, comparative studies that yield policy-relevant insights remain limited.
methodsWe conducted a multisource comparative health-systems analysis using statutory laws, government publications, academic society reports, peer-reviewed literature, and national statistics. Key domains included EMS governance, workforce, prehospital organization, hospital-based emergency care, legal obligations for EMS patient transport and hospital acceptance, and governance and quality assurance mechanisms. Data were synthesized in comparative tables and narrative summaries to highlight structural and operational differences.
resultsJapan's EMS operates under decentralized municipal control through 722 fire departments, serving 4,100 designated emergency institutions with 6,139 board-certified emergency physicians. In 2023, over 6.64 million ambulance dispatches occurred, and 8.6% were classified as critical cases (1.3% death and 7.3% severe). Korea's EMS is centrally governed with 412 designated facilities in a tiered system and 2,464 specialists. Annual ambulance activations exceeded 3.5 million, with severe cases accounting for approximately 5% to 10%. Japan employs dual statutory frameworks (Fire Service Act and Medical Practitioners Act), allowing clinical discretion, whereas Korea enforces unified regulations with stricter obligations and criminal penalties for hospital refusal of emergency patients.
conclusionThe contrasting systems suggest that hybrid governance that combines centralized standard settings with local operational flexibility may optimize EMS performance. These findings provide lessons for EMS reform, cross-border collaboration, and disaster preparedness in high-income nations facing similar demographic and healthcare challenges.
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.