ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Needs-based equity: an international comparison].
Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The distribution of healthcare resources represents a major challenge for modern health systems. This article compares how Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and England plan their healthcare provision to achieve needs-based equity. German outpatient healthcare planning relies mainly on fixed physician-to-population ratios and covers only physicians and psychotherapists. In contrast, other countries use more comprehensive approaches: The Netherlands regulates training capacities for 79 different health professions using simulation models to predict future workforce needs. Austria integrates planning across hospital beds, healthcare personnel, and geographic accessibility based on the "Best Point of Service" principle. Sweden uses population-based models that incorporate the Care Need Index, which considers social and health factors alongside legally guaranteed treatment timelines. England applies weighted funding formulas that explicitly consider preventable deaths and socioeconomic disadvantage when allocating resources. This comparison shows significant opportunities for Germany to improve its planning system, especially by including multiple healthcare professions, coordinating across care sectors, addressing social inequalities in health, and integrating non-physician professions such as midwives into systematic planning. The findings indicate that moving from simple population ratios toward outcome-focused planning methods that account for socioeconomic factors is essential for achieving true needs-based equity in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42329366What 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.