ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2025
Accountability, autonomy, equity, and trust in selected healthcare systems: a comparative analysis.
Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2025. 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.
- Bridging evidence and care for knee osteoarthritis in China: a randomized feasibility trial with RE-AIM-guided process evaluation of the PEAK-CHN model of care.Implementation science communications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimHealthcare systems struggle to balance priorities within complex settings. This analysis aims to identify cross-national insights and trade-offs in healthcare policy by examining how five high-income countries navigate accountability, autonomy, equity, trust, satisfaction, and system effectiveness - competing parameters that shape system performance and public experience.
methodsA structured comparative analysis was conducted across five national healthcare systems: Israel, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US). Publicly available literature, including peer-reviewed studies, policy reports, and population surveys, was synthesized using a narrative approach due to variation in data definitions and context.
resultsThe Netherlands and Germany demonstrate relatively balanced performance across all parameters, supported by regulated insurance models. Despite universal coverage, the UK system faces sustained access failures and eroding public satisfaction. The US underperforms in equity and satisfaction but demonstrates strengths in specific clinical domains. Israel combines strong statutory coverage with growing reliance on supplementary and private insurance, raising concerns about long-term equity and regulatory coherence.
conclusionsEach system reflects different strengths and trade-offs across the examined dimensions. The findings highlight structural tensions between autonomy and accountability, equity and access, decentralization and fragmentation, and public versus private provision that shape overall system performance. These insights are relevant for health systems seeking to enhance care delivery in an effective and patient-satisfying manner, and they support cross-national dialogue on designing resilient and equitable health systems.
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.