English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Geographical imbalances in the health workforce, particularly the shortage of health care workers in rural areas, is an issue of social and political concern in most countries. Estimating the number of required doctors is essential for evidence-based health policy planning. In this study, we propose two methods for estimating the number of required doctors using a simple method. One is counting by unit and the other is incorporating access to medical institutions. The purpose of this study is to verify the need to incorporate access to medical institutions when estimating the number of required physicians in a region by comparing both estimation methods from the viewpoint of regional population density.    Methods  We calculated the ratio of outpatients who can access medical institutions and the number of required physicians using the travel time by car and the number of patients who can be treated per doctor per day (estimation method for the number of physicians based on the access simulation, hereinafter referred to as EAS). We compared the results of this estimation with those of a conventional method, such as the number of doctors per population (estimation method for the number of physicians based on the number of patients, hereinafter referred to as ENP) to show how important it is to incorporate the element of accessibility in such a simulation analysis. Based on the results, we discussed the applicability of the proposed method.    Results  ENP estimated that 38,685 outpatient primary care (PC) physicians were required and EAS estimated that 46,378 were required. There was a difference of about 8000. A comparison of the EAS-estimated number of physicians and the ENP-estimated number of physicians showed that the ENP-estimated number was small, particularly in areas with low population density.    Conclusions  The results showed that it is effective to use the proposed EAS method for the estimation of PC physicians, particularly in areas with low population density. We showed that the method of allocating the number of physicians in proportion to the number of patients in a certain unit requires paying attention to the setting of the unit.

international journal of health geographics

Effect and significance of incorporating access in estimating the number of required physicians: focus on differences in population density in the target area