ArticleJournal of health monitoring2024
Utilisation of medical services in Germany and Europe - Results of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS 3, 2018 - 2020).
Article in Journal of health monitoring, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Work-Related Health Check to Identify the Need for Rehabilitation and Preventive Care (Check-Up 45+): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial in General Practice (PReHa45).Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Trial
- Assessing the burden of oral health conditions in the German population: a focus on dental caries, periodontitis, and edentulism.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Feasibility of data extraction and evaluation with BeoNet-Halle: outcomes and data quality in hepatitis B and C screenings.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Rising direct medical costs of osteoarthritis in Germany from 2002 to 2020: trends, demographic drivers, and public health considerations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Needs-based care is a central concern of healthcare policy. A European comparison of the utilisation of medical services can help to assess national data and identify the need for action. Methods: This article describes indicators on the utilisation of outpatient and inpatient services, medical examinations and the use of medicines from the third wave of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS 3) and compares the results from Germany with the European averages. Results: Age-standardised, the utilisation of medical services in Germany was above the European average without exception, whereby demographic and social differences were similar. Almost all services were utilised more frequently by women and in older age groups. Exceptions are inpatient services and colonoscopy, where there was no difference between the sexes, and more frequent use of psychiatric and psychotherapeutic services and non-prescription medication among younger adults. Specialist medical and dental services were used more frequently in the high education group, psychiatric and psychotherapeutic services as well as inpatient services and prescription medication in the low education group. Conclusions: The European comparison requires a differentiated categorisation of the findings. While the high utilisation in Germany for some evidence-based services (e.g. colonoscopy, dentistry) indicates good access to care, the high inpatient utilisation, for example, is also the subject of critical discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.