ArticleBMC health services research2026
Regional disparities in access to coordinated health care in Poland: development and application of an accessibility index.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoordinated care has been introduced in Poland since 2022 as a nationwide reform to improve healthcare continuity and reduce patient out-of-pocket expenditures. However, the regional implementation of coordinated care remains uneven, with limited evidence on equity and household-level impacts. This study aimed to assess territorial disparities in access to coordinated healthcare in Poland by integrating infrastructural, financial, and perceptual dimensions.
methodsWe combined administrative data on healthcare providers with anonymized household-level data from the 2023 Household Budget Survey (28,089 households). A synthetic Accessibility and Satisfaction Index (ASI) was developed, incorporating three weighted components: number of coordinated care facilities per 10,000 inhabitants (0.4), Subjective Index of Health Needs Satisfaction (0.3), and Household Economic Burden Index (0.3). Concentration indices (Gini, Theil, Shannon entropy) and correlation analyses (Pearson, Spearman) were applied to assess interregional inequalities and relationships between accessibility, household income, and healthcare expenditures.
resultsAlthough coordinated care facilities were relatively evenly distributed nationwide (Gini = 0.134; Theil = 0.0288; Shannon entropy = 2.744), the ASI revealed significant disparities in effective access. Lubelskie (0.851), Dolnośląskie (0.781), and Świętokrzyskie (0.765) achieved the highest ASI scores, while Wielkopolskie (0.563) and Opolskie (0.543) ranked lowest. Infrastructural availability strongly correlated with ASI values (r = 0.78), whereas subjective satisfaction showed weak associations (r = 0.07). Household income was negatively correlated with the health expenditure burden (r = − 0.46), confirming the regressive character of private health costs. Expenditures on pharmaceuticals were negatively associated with facility availability (r = − 0.28), suggesting self-medication in regions with limited access.
conclusionsThe findings confirm that infrastructure is the main determinant of coordinated healthcare accessibility in Poland, while subjective satisfaction plays a minor role. The proposed ASI offers a valid and stable synthetic tool for evaluating spatial disparities in access to coordinated healthcare. Policymakers should prioritize harmonizing regional infrastructure, monitoring waiting times, and integrating financial and perceptual dimensions into health system evaluation.
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.