ArticleBMC health services research2026
Differences in patient access to and utilization of caregiving services: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
Abstract
backgroundCaregiving services provide critical support for patients’ health needs and well-being. While studies have documented disproportionate access to and utilization of caregiving services for certain populations, the extent of these differences is not well understood. This scoping review assesses the differences and their extent in patient access to and utilization of paid and unpaid caregiving services.
methodsPubMed, CINAHL, EconLit, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between April 2017 and August 2024. Titles and abstracts underwent dual independent review. A single reviewer conducted full text screening and abstraction, which a second reviewer verified. Reviewers used DistillerSR software. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews.
resultsThe search identified 1,838 articles, and 92 met inclusion criteria. Most included studies focused only on paid caregiving services (n = 69, 75%). The most frequently reported differences in access to or utilization of caregiving services were by race/ethnicity (n = 47, 51%), medical condition (n = 45, 49%), and geographic location (n = 41, 45%). Studies generally reported that White patients had greater access to paid services than patients of other races but were less likely to use unpaid caregivers. Patients with poorer health, more comorbidities, and difficulties with activities of daily living were more likely to utilize services. Patients living in rural and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas faced challenges accessing services due to transportation issues and distance. Other characteristics examined include sex, age, insurance, income, education, disability, marital status, language, and living arrangement.
conclusionsThis scoping review identified studies that captured differences in patient access to and utilization of caregiving services across groups, services, medical conditions, and settings. A comprehensive measure to gather data on access to caregiving services and a more systemized data capture around explanatory variables would help identify needs among individuals with different sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions. Without sustained research, identifying how any single factor proportionately affects utilization is challenging. Continued assessments of caregiving services needed by patients with varying medical conditions are critical to improving the outcomes and experiences of patients and caregivers.
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.