Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42040123›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Ranking and clustering G20 healthcare systems: a framework for U.S. reform.

Eliasz Powzun-Palczuk, Dariusz Walkowiak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eliasz Powzun-PalczukSibilla Solutions, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Dariusz WalkowiakDepartment of Organization and Management in Health Care, Uniwersytet Medyczny im Karola Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu, Poznań, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and compare healthcare system performance across G20 countries and Poland using multidimensional indicators of health outcomes, infrastructure, workforce capacity, and disease burden. The study examines structural patterns associated with high performance and implications for U. S. health system reform. Methods: We analysed 34 standardised indicators from WHO, OECD, and national databases. Z-score normalisation enabled cross-country comparability, and hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method validated performance groupings. Countries were classified into five tiers. Results: Healthcare performance varied substantially across countries. Higher GDP per capita (PPP) was associated with better outcomes, though outliers showed that financial resources alone are insufficient. Japan, South Korea, and Australia formed the highest-performing group, characterised by coherent financing, strong regulation, and preventive investment. The United States, despite the highest spending, underperformed relative to most high-income systems. Conclusion: Economic capacity facilitates but does not guarantee strong health system performance. The countries in the highest-performing group share several institutional characteristics, including regulated insurance markets, structured cost-sharing mechanisms, and strong primary care systems. The U.S. may benefit from adopting elements of regulated, solidarity-based multi-payer models observed in higher-performing countries.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Care ReformCluster AnalysisHumansPublic Health InfrastructureUnited Statescluster analysiscomparative health policyG20 health systemshealthcare system performancehealthcare workforcehealth infrastructurehealth outcomesU.S. healthcare reform

Identifiers

PMID42040123
PMCPMC13106346

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.