Talk:List of countries by quality of healthcare

Data explanation
Shouldn't there be an explanation of the data, or a link to an article that does so? Survival rates are not synonymous with good healthcare - detection rates, preventative measures and a host of other factors are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.69.82.82 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2014‎(UTC)
 * I must agree. The article makes a claim of listing countries by the overall quality of healthcare, but only observes a very narrow definition of quality in healthcare (survival rates) while on top of that looking at only two very narrow slices of the whole (cancer and cardiovascular disease). At best this list is not very helpful and it is outright deceitful at worst. There are surely good sources and studies out there which analyze this subject matter in a wider and more accurate manner. --88.112.2.206 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree too; there’s no indication of what size of sample is being used, nor how that relates to the population of the country cited. If healthcare is only open to higher socio-economic groups, it is entirely possible that survival chances will increase; it would also be possible that there are groups unable to afford health care who may be dying of the diseases measured here, but not being included as “survivors“ because they never had any treatment to survive. Jock123 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That article should just be deleted!
The "quality of healthcare" is only defined by cancers?

This page is so bad that it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steff-X (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * no there's also a section for heart attacks and strokes. But I agree that the page name is misleading. Nakonana (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree, this is a miserable article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.220.180 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead time bias
The mortality rates say nothing about the quality of healthcare, as they are distorted by lead time bias ( Lead_time_bias ). If you diagnose cancer aggressively, you will have a higher portion of early stages and naturally have a higher mortality rate, without the actual CARE playing any role in it. --2A02:8106:258:3A00:0:0:0:2C6D (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Prophylaxis and proactive screening for common illnesses is an important part of healthcare. If such things aren't offered by your healthcare system, then your system is definitely lacking and lagging behind current research and best practice guidelines. Nakonana (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Your "current research" isn't. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are a thing. Lead time bias is an acknowledged problem, as is poor understanding of actual likelihoods. "Proactive screening" without any significant pre-test prevalence is a recipe for meaningless results and false-positives. It's easy to "save lives" if they were never at risk to begin with. "Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. " BJU Int. 2024 Mar 12. doi: 10.1111/bju.16311. "Although clinical trials have started observing mortality from the date of randomization to eliminate differential lead time, real-world studies inspecting the outcome after lung cancer diagnosis are subject to lead-time bias. Lead-time bias must be adjusted to avoid overestimation of effectiveness."  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91852-6   etc. 2A02:8106:258:3A00:51D0:426F:A2D6:FE5A (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Outdated nonsense article
There's absolutely no reason for an article like this to exist. Just a compilation of outdated healthcare rankings based on arbitrary criteria. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)