ArticleBMC health services research2026
Thirty-five years of dermatology workforce inequality and centralization in Austria.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The equitable distribution of medical specialists is critical for ensuring timely access to dermatologic care. However, the long-term patterns of dermatologist allocation have not been systematically examined in Austria. This paper addresses the research question: How has the dermatology workforce in Austria been distributed across its nine federal states from 1990 to 2025, and what factors contribute to geographic inequalities in access to dermatologic care? The study presents the first 35-year longitudinal analysis of the distribution of the dermatology workforce in Austria. Using annual dermatologist counts and population data, we calculate dermatologist density per 100,000 inhabitants, evaluate geographic inequality using the Gini coefficient, the Coefficient of Variation (CV), and the Theil index, and assess metropolitan dominance using Location Quotients (LQ). Additionally, we forecast the national workforce supply to 2030 using ARIMA modeling. The results reveal a substantial increase in the national dermatology workforce, reflected in a consistent rise in dermatologist density across all states, and a significant reduction in geographic inequality. The Gini coefficient decreased from 0.319 to 0.159, the CV from 0.684 to 0.315, and the Theil Index from 0.187 to 0.045. Despite these improvements, Vienna remains the primary dermatologic hub, with its dermatologist density rising from 9.23 to 17.01 per 100,000 inhabitants and LQ values consistently exceeding 3.0. The ARIMA(1,1,1) forecast predicts continued workforce growth to over 2,130 dermatologists by 2030, yet no natural redistribution toward underserved states is projected. These findings are interpreted through the lenses of the Inverse Care Law, the WHO Human Resources for Health framework, urban centralization theory, and path dependency. While Austria's dermatology workforce is expanding, it remains structurally imbalanced and unlikely to self-correct. To address this issue, policy strategies should focus on decentralized training programs, regional incentives, and the enhancement of dermatology capacity outside Vienna.
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.