ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Ranking and clustering G20 healthcare systems: a framework for U.S. reform.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The anatomy of AI implementation skepticism in Polish healthcare: an explanatory mixed-methods analysis of psychographic barriers among healthcare professionals.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
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
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.