The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explaining income‐related inequalities in doctor utilisation in Europe
Abstract
This paper presents new international comparative evidence on the factors driving inequalities in the use of GP and specialist services in 12 EU member states. The data are taken from the 1996 wave of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP). We examine two types of utilisation (the probability of a visit and the conditional number of positive visits) for two types of medical care: general practitioner and medical specialist visits using probit, truncated Negbin and generalised Negbin models. We find little or no evidence of income‐related inequity in the probability of a GP visit in these countries. Conditional upon at least one visit, there is even evidence of a somewhat pro‐poor distribution. By contrast, substantial pro‐rich inequity emerges in virtually every country with respect to the probability of contacting a medical specialist. Despite their lower needs for such care, wealthier and higher educated individuals appear to be much more likely to see a specialist than the less well‐off. This phenomenon is universal in Europe, but stronger in countries where either private insurance cover or private practice options are offered to purchase quicker and/or preferential access. Pro‐rich inequity in subsequent visits adds to this access inequity but appears more related to regional disparities in utilisation than to other factors. Despite decades of universal and fairly comprehensive coverage in European countries, utilisation patterns suggest that rich and poor are not treated equally. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regression Analysis of Count Data
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139013567 · Cited by 6,640
The analysis of household surveys: A microeconometric approach to development policy
Deaton, A. (1997) · doi:10.1596/0-8018-5254-4 · Cited by 4,877
Cited by
Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health
STARFIELD, B., SHI, L., & MACINKO, J. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x · Cited by 5,507
Japanese universal health coverage: evolution, achievements, and challenges
Ikegami, N., Yoo, B.-K., Hashimoto, H., Matsumoto, M., Ogata, H., Babazono, A., Watanabe, R., Shibuya, K., Yang, B.-M., Reich, M. R., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60828-3 · Cited by 688
Health Inequality - determinants and policies
Diderichsen, F., Andersen, I., Manuel, C., The Working Group of the Danish Review on Social Determinants of Health, Andersen, A.-M. N., Bach, E., Baadsgaard, M., Brønnum-Hansen, H., Hansen, F. K., Jeune, B., et al. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494812457734 · Cited by 247
Socio-economic inequalities in health care in England
Cookson, R., Propper, C., Asaria, M., & Raine, R. (2016) · Fiscal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2016.12109 · Cited by 223
Gordon, T., Booysen, F., & Mbonigaba, J. (2020) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8368-7 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Doorslaer, E. V., Koolman, X., & Jones, A. M.
- Venue
- Health Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-06-14
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 629-647
- ISSN
- 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1050
- OpenAlex
- W2090723924
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 40.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining income‐related inequalities in doctor utilisation in Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hec.919
- The paper
- Doorslaer, E. V., Koolman, X., & Jones, A. M. (2004). Explaining income‐related inequalities in doctor utilisation in Europe. Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.919
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.