Mihail-Vasile Pruteanu, Alina Moroșanu, Georgeta Zegan, Constantin Bogdan Mihăilă, Elena Mihaela Cărăușu
{"title":"Highlighting global inequities in health services quality research: a systematic review and quantitative evidence (2014-2023).","authors":"Mihail-Vasile Pruteanu, Alina Moroșanu, Georgeta Zegan, Constantin Bogdan Mihăilă, Elena Mihaela Cărăușu","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01376-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health service quality is important for adequate and equitable health systems. However, research on this topic may reflect imbalances in global scientific production, visibility and collaboration. This study examines global trends and disparities in health service quality research over the past decade, focusing on thematic priorities, geographic distribution and structural inequities.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review aims to (1) analyse the evolution of the quality of health services literature over time, assessing published articles and their impacts; (2) identify key trends, themes and significant contributions; (3) examine the geographical distribution of contributions to identify which nations excel in this area; (4) identify the key journals, authors and affiliations that significantly improve the quality of health services research; (5) assess the main factors that influence the citation impact of high-quality health services research; and (6) identify gaps in the quality of health services literature and suggest future research directions based on bibliometric insights.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We integrated bibliometric analysis (using co-word networks, citation counts and keyword trends) with econometric modelling to map and synthesize publication patterns, visibility and thematic priorities. Specifically, panel regression was applied to examine the structural and content-related predictors of citation impact across a longitudinal dataset of peer-reviewed studies (2014-2023). The combination of bibliometric and econometric methods enhanced the analytical depth of the systematic review, enabling quantification of disparities and explanatory insights beyond descriptive synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 9121 records identified, 8857 articles were included in the final analysis. The included studies covered a broad range of regions and languages. Global publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2021. Three dominant research themes were identified: patient experience, service delivery and health outcomes. Institutions from high-income countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, accounted for the most output and citations. Articles in English had significantly higher visibility than non-English publications. Citation impact was positively associated with international collaboration and reference count but negatively associated with title length and excessive keyword use.</p><p><strong>Limitations of evidence: </strong>The review relied on a single database [Web of Science (WoS)], which may have excluded relevant articles indexed elsewhere. Citation lag affected newer studies. The bibliometric nature of the study limits direct conclusions on the quality of interventions or clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the growth in global research output, significant disparities persist in the visibility and influence of health services quality research. Linguistic, institutional and geographic factors contribute to uneven dissemination and recognition. Promoting inclusive publishing practices and fostering cross-regional collaboration are essential to reducing structural inequities and enhancing the global relevance of health systems research.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The protocol is publicly available through the Protocol Exchange Platform and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.261ge8ypyg47/v1 .</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12376348/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01376-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Health service quality is important for adequate and equitable health systems. However, research on this topic may reflect imbalances in global scientific production, visibility and collaboration. This study examines global trends and disparities in health service quality research over the past decade, focusing on thematic priorities, geographic distribution and structural inequities.
Objectives: This review aims to (1) analyse the evolution of the quality of health services literature over time, assessing published articles and their impacts; (2) identify key trends, themes and significant contributions; (3) examine the geographical distribution of contributions to identify which nations excel in this area; (4) identify the key journals, authors and affiliations that significantly improve the quality of health services research; (5) assess the main factors that influence the citation impact of high-quality health services research; and (6) identify gaps in the quality of health services literature and suggest future research directions based on bibliometric insights.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We integrated bibliometric analysis (using co-word networks, citation counts and keyword trends) with econometric modelling to map and synthesize publication patterns, visibility and thematic priorities. Specifically, panel regression was applied to examine the structural and content-related predictors of citation impact across a longitudinal dataset of peer-reviewed studies (2014-2023). The combination of bibliometric and econometric methods enhanced the analytical depth of the systematic review, enabling quantification of disparities and explanatory insights beyond descriptive synthesis.
Results: Out of 9121 records identified, 8857 articles were included in the final analysis. The included studies covered a broad range of regions and languages. Global publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2021. Three dominant research themes were identified: patient experience, service delivery and health outcomes. Institutions from high-income countries, particularly those in North America and Europe, accounted for the most output and citations. Articles in English had significantly higher visibility than non-English publications. Citation impact was positively associated with international collaboration and reference count but negatively associated with title length and excessive keyword use.
Limitations of evidence: The review relied on a single database [Web of Science (WoS)], which may have excluded relevant articles indexed elsewhere. Citation lag affected newer studies. The bibliometric nature of the study limits direct conclusions on the quality of interventions or clinical outcomes.
Conclusions: Despite the growth in global research output, significant disparities persist in the visibility and influence of health services quality research. Linguistic, institutional and geographic factors contribute to uneven dissemination and recognition. Promoting inclusive publishing practices and fostering cross-regional collaboration are essential to reducing structural inequities and enhancing the global relevance of health systems research.
Registration: The protocol is publicly available through the Protocol Exchange Platform and can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.261ge8ypyg47/v1 .
背景:卫生服务质量对充分和公平的卫生系统至关重要。然而,关于这一主题的研究可能反映了全球科学生产、可见度和合作的不平衡。本研究审查了过去十年来卫生服务质量研究的全球趋势和差异,重点是专题优先事项、地理分布和结构不平等。目的:本综述旨在(1)分析卫生服务文献质量随时间的演变,评估已发表的文章及其影响;(2)确定主要趋势、主题和重要贡献;(3)检查贡献的地理分布,以确定哪些国家在这方面表现突出;(4)确定能够显著提高卫生服务研究质量的关键期刊、作者和所属机构;(5)评估影响高质量卫生服务研究被引影响的主要因素;(6)识别卫生服务文献质量的差距,并根据文献计量学见解提出未来的研究方向。方法:按照系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA) 2020指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价。我们将文献计量学分析(使用共词网络、引文计数和关键词趋势)与计量经济学模型结合起来,绘制和综合出版模式、可见性和主题优先级。具体而言,应用面板回归分析了同行评议研究纵向数据集(2014-2023)中引用影响的结构和内容相关预测因子。文献计量学和计量经济学方法的结合增强了系统综述的分析深度,使差异的量化和超越描述性综合的解释性见解成为可能。结果:在9121条记录中,8857篇文章被纳入最终分析。纳入的研究涵盖了广泛的地区和语言。全球出版物数量稳步增长,在2021年达到顶峰。确定了三个主要研究主题:患者体验、服务提供和健康结果。来自高收入国家的机构,特别是北美和欧洲的机构,在产出和引用方面占了最多。英文文章的可见度明显高于非英文出版物。引文影响与国际合作和参考文献数量呈正相关,但与标题长度和过多关键词使用负相关。证据的局限性:该综述依赖于单一数据库[Web of Science (WoS)],该数据库可能排除了其他地方索引的相关文章。引用滞后影响了较新的研究。该研究的文献计量学性质限制了对干预措施质量或临床结果的直接结论。结论:尽管全球研究产出有所增长,但卫生服务质量研究的可见度和影响力仍然存在显著差异。语言、体制和地理因素造成传播和认识不平衡。促进包容性出版做法和促进跨区域合作对于减少结构性不平等和加强卫生系统研究的全球相关性至关重要。注册:该协议可通过协议交换平台公开获取,并可通过https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.261ge8ypyg47/v1访问。
期刊介绍:
Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.