4.4 Article

Access to paediatric oncology centres in Switzerland: Disparities across rural-urban and Swiss-foreigners cohorts

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13679

关键词

accessibility; health disparities; location-allocation; paediatric oncology

资金

  1. Universitat Basel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the accessibility of Swiss paediatric oncology centres using spatial accessibility analysis. The results showed that overall accessibility was satisfactory, with better access in urban areas and for EU/EFTA and non-European residents.
Objective In face of disparities in access to cancer care, it has been proposed to measure accessibility and to explore policy strategies for mitigating inequality of access. We aimed to determine the accessibility of Swiss paediatric oncology centres. Methods We employed spatial accessibility analysis, calculating driving time to nearest facility. Four data types were used: disaggregated population data, administrative data, street network data and addresses of centres. Besides analysing general accessibility, we compared access of urban versus rural areas and of Swiss citizens versus foreign residents and evaluated designating a new centre to improve accessibility. Results Overall, 97.4% could reach the nearest centre within 120 min (95.0% < 90 min, 86.5% < 60 min, 48.5% < 30 min). Accessibility could most effectively be improved by a new centre in Sion (city in the southwest of Switzerland). Access in urban areas was better than in rural areas. In urban areas, access of European Union/European Free Trade Association (EU/EFTA) and non-European residents was better than access of Swiss citizens and residents from non-EU European countries. Conclusion Access is satisfactory. However, our study presents high-resolution insights which could serve as points of leverage for policymakers to mitigate inequalities by designating a new centre and to evaluate potential benefits of centralisation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据