ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Equal opportunities in access to medical rehabilitation].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccess to medical rehabilitation in Germany is largely standardized, yet influenced by various contextual conditions. This study examines the extent to which people with pre-existing disabilities face differences in access to medical rehabilitation compared with all people in need of rehabilitation.
methodsTwo qualitative studies were analyzed: MeReMBe (Medizinische Rehabilitation für Menschen mit einer vorbestehenden Behinderung) (2/2024-1/2026) and FöBeR(Förderliche Faktoren bei der Beantragung einer medizinischen Rehabilitation) (04/2021-08/2022). Both studies used maximum variation sampling. A total of 19 expert interviews and 8 focus groups with stakeholders involved in the rehabilitation process were conducted. The data were transcribed, pseudonymized, and analyzed using structuring content analysis.
resultsApplications to rehabilitation are often initiated by relatives and other close persons as well as by general practitioners, who play a key role in the access process. Due to cognitive and communication impairments, for example, the usual communicative decision-making process is often not possible. In addition, the indication-oriented structure of the rehabilitation system impedes access because complex or multiple impairments often cannot be clearly assigned to a single indication category. DISCUSSION: To support access to medical rehabilitation, potential rehabilitation patients and those involved in the process (e.g., relatives and healthcare professionals) require more low-threshold information and counseling options to fully benefit from the potential offered by medical rehabilitation. Diversity-related factors can interact in the access process and reinforce each other (e.g., disability and migration background). Complex or specific needs are insufficiently considered here, making it difficult to provide access to care.
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.