ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
How Online Scheduling Platforms Affect Insurance-Based Disparities in Access to Specialist Outpatient Care in Berlin, Germany: Cross-Sectional Audit Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Online Scheduling and the Digital Front Door to Unequal Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
Background: Online scheduling platforms are increasingly chosen by patients for scheduling outpatient appointments. Due to payment for listing or platform decisions on listing visibility, they can amplify access inequalities. Especially in Germany's dual insurance system, the beneficiary difference in waiting times for private health insurance (PHI) patients compared to statutory health insurance (SHI) patients for specialist appointments might increase. Objective: The objective of this study was to quantify differences in waiting times for the first available specialist outpatient appointments for SHI versus PHI profiles on a large commercial online scheduling platform (Doctolib) in Berlin and to assess whether practices offering equal appointment options for both insurance types are deprioritized by the platform. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, internet-based audit between January 6, 2025, and February 26, 2025. Two standardized simulated patient profiles (SHI and PHI) were used to query 1867 platform listings; practices with at least 1 bookable slot for both profiles were documented (n=492). The primary outcome was the waiting time in days for the earliest available appointment. Paired 1-tailed t tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare within-provider waiting times, while exploratory subgroup analyses examined specialty-specific differences. Sensitivity analyses excluded the top 5% of the longest waits. Effect sizes (Hedges g) were computed. Results: Across 492 practices, mean waiting times were 50.4 (SD 52.2) days for SHI and 22.6 (SD 36.8) days for PHI, yielding a mean difference of 27.8 days (95% CI 23.6-31.9 d; t491=13.05; P<.001; Hedges g=0.59). After excluding the top 5% of waiting times (n=44), the difference remained significant (Δ=23.1 d; 95% CI 20.0-26.2 d; t447=14.77; P<.001). Providers that offered earlier PHI appointments showed substantially longer SHI waiting times (61.8 vs 37.5 d; P<.001) and substantially shorter PHI waits (12.0 vs 38.2 d; P<.001). Platform ranking was correlated with earlier PHI availability (Spearman rank correlation r=0.574; P<.001). Conclusions: On this commercial online scheduling platform in Berlin, SHI patients experienced substantially longer waits for the first available specialist appointments than PHI patients across multiple specialties. Potential mechanisms that could amplify pre-existing insurance-based access inequities are discussed. Transparency about the platform's ranking criteria should be considered to promote equitable access.
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.