Background Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. Methods We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Results Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. Conclusion This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019123222.

BackgroundPalliative Care is an approach that improves quality of life for patients and their families facing the problems associated with incurable life-threatening illness. In many countries, due to the rapidly ageing population, increasingly more people are suffering from serious chronic disease towards the end of life, making further development in palliative care a major public health challenge. The aim of this study was to develop the first targets for public health initiatives to improve palliative care in Germany.MethodsBased on the findings from pilot studies (qualitative interviews and surveys with different stakeholders in the health care system), we conducted a modified Delphi study with two rounds of questionnaires with experts in public health and palliative care. In the first round, the experts commented on the findings from the pilot studies. The answers were evaluated descriptively and with qualitative content analysis, resulting in the formulation of 25 targets. These were presented to the experts in the second Delphi round to assess each of them separately with regard to its importance and current implementation (7-point answer scales) and in relation to the other targets (defining the five most important of the 25 targets).ResultsSix most relevant targets for public health initiatives to improve palliative care in Germany were worked out: Supporting palliative care as a basic attitude for the care of people in the last phase of life; coordinating healthcare for people in the last phase of life; establishing cooperation among health professions and disciplines; establishing education in palliative care for all professional groups with contact to people in the last phase of life; reviewing the evidence of palliative care measures; offering support to family members who are caring for someone in the last phase of life.ConclusionsTo systematically develop palliative care, it makes sense to define fields of action with individual targets. For Germany, it can be recommended to give priority to the targets that were highlighted as the most relevant in this study. The next step will be to develop, implement and evaluate tangible measures to achieve these targets.

Receiving information about expected costs promptly after a cancer diagnosis through psycho‐oncology care or social counselling is crucial for patients to be prepared for the financial impact. Nevertheless, less is known about financial impacts for cancer patients in countries with statutory health insurance. This study aims to explore the full scope of costs that constitute the financial impact of a cancer diagnosis in Germany and to identify the reasons for high financial decline. Semistructured interviews with 39 cancer patients were conducted between May 2017 and April 2018. Narratives were analysed via qualitative content analysis. Several factors influenced cancer patients’ indirect costs and direct medical and non‐medical costs. For many patients, these changes resulted in higher indirect costs caused by income losses, especially when surcharges for shift work, travel expenses or company benefits ceased and were not reimbursed. Higher direct medical costs were caused by co‐payments and additional non‐refundable costs. Non‐medical costs were reported to increase for some patients and to decrease for others, as for example, leisure activity costs either increasing because of pampering oneself to cope with the diagnosis and undergoing therapy or decreasing because of not being able to participate in leisure activities during therapy. When analysing the financial impacts of individuals' total costs, we found that some patients experienced no financial decline or an overall financial increase. Most patients experienced overall higher costs, and income loss was the main driver of a high financial decline. Nevertheless, decreased non‐medical costs due to lower work‐related and leisure activity costs could compensate for these higher costs. Cancer patients are confronted with a variety of changes in their financial situations, even in countries with statutory health insurance. Screening for cancer patients with a high risk of financial decline should consider any effects on indirect costs and direct medical and nonmedical costs.

Purpose Financial toxicity can have a major impact on the quality of life of cancer survivors but lacks conceptual clarity and understanding of the interrelationships of the various aspects that constitute financial toxicity. This study aims to extract major drivers and mediators along the pathway from cancer-related costs to subjective financial distress from the patients’ experiences to establish a better understanding of financial toxicity as a patient-reported outcome. Methods Qualitative semistructured interviews with 39 cancer patients were conducted in Germany and addressed patient experiences with cancer-related financial burden and distress in a country with a statutory health care system. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. Results Several aspects of financial burden need to be considered to understand financial toxicity. The assessment of the ability to make ends meet now or in the future and the subjective evaluation of financial adjustments—namely, the burden of applied financial adjustments and the availability of financial adjustment options—mediate the connection between higher costs and subjective financial distress. Moreover, bureaucracy can influence financial distress through a feeling of helplessness during interactions with authorities because of high effort, non-traceable decisions, or one’s own lack of knowledge. Conclusion We identified four factors that mediate the impact of higher costs on financial distress that should be addressed in further studies and targeted by changes in policies and support measures. Financial toxicity is more complex than previously thought and should be conceptualized and understood more comprehensively in measurements, including the subjective assessment of available adjustment options and perceived burden of financial adjustments.