TOP 10 Countries by Physicians per 1,000 (2025)
The number of physicians per 1,000 residents is the most widely cited benchmark of medical workforce density. While it cannot capture the full complexity of health system performance, it tells us how much clinical capacity a country has relative to its population — and where the largest gaps between high- and low-income systems lie. This article presents the 2025 ranking snapshot, using the latest WHO, World Bank and OECD data (predominantly 2022–2024), a full analytical methodology, insights, interpretation and an FAQ for readers unfamiliar with the indicator.
Values are approximate and harmonised for cross-country comparability. They serve analytical purposes and do not constitute an official statistical release.
Top 10 countries with the highest physician density
The leading group is dominated by European countries, post-Soviet health systems and two clear outliers — Cuba and Monaco — that reach physician-density levels far above most regional peers. All ten countries report more than 5 physicians per 1,000 residents, compared with a global average of roughly 1.7 per 1,000 and an OECD average of approximately 3.7 per 1,000.
Cuba holds the world's highest doctor density by a wide margin. Decades of emphasis on community-based primary care and large-scale medical education have produced an extraordinary physician-to-population ratio. Cuba also runs international medical cooperation programmes, deploying thousands of doctors abroad — meaning domestic density is achieved alongside significant external deployment.
Monaco's figure is partly a statistical effect of an extremely small resident population concentrated alongside a dense cluster of specialists serving both local residents and cross-border patients from France and Italy. Very high health spending per capita and a high-end healthcare ecosystem underpin this density.
A small island nation with universal health coverage that has invested heavily in health workforce training and recruitment relative to its GDP. The combination of a small population base and targeted health sector investment pushes doctor density well above most comparable countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Greece ranks among the highest in the OECD for physician density. Part of this figure reflects the counting of all licensed doctors, including those not in active clinical practice. Regional imbalances and emigration of younger physicians to other EU states remain concerns, but total capacity is high by any international standard.
Belgium combines a dense hospital infrastructure with strong specialist care and a large nursing workforce. Significant cross-border care flows within the EU add complexity to the measurement. Pressure points include an ageing physician cohort and rising chronic disease burden.
Lithuania's physician density exceeds the EU average and reflects sustained post-transition investment in health workforce expansion. Ongoing emigration of health professionals to Western European systems remains a structural vulnerability, with health reform efforts targeting a shift toward stronger primary and preventive care.
Portugal has one of the highest physician densities in Southern Europe, supported by expanded medical-school intakes since the 2000s and improved retention policies. Strong primary care networks have been reinforced, though shortages persist in rural and interior regions where geographic access to care is harder to ensure.
Georgia retains a high physician density inherited from the Soviet-era Semashko system. Health reforms since the early 2000s have introduced social health insurance and more market-oriented service provision, while the overall size of the physician workforce per capita remains high by regional and global standards.
Austria's strong social health insurance system, extensive hospital capacity and high health spending per capita support one of the highest physician densities in the OECD. Access to specialists is broad with relatively short waiting times, though rural access remains a policy concern in mountainous regions.
Russia's high overall physician density masks significant regional disparities: urban centres and large cities are well served while rural and remote areas face structural shortages. Health outcomes are shaped by lifestyle risk factors and economic inequalities as well as aggregate workforce supply.
Table 1. Top 10 countries by physicians per 1,000 people (2025 snapshot)
| Rank | Country | Physicians per 1,000 | Data year | Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cuba | 9.54 | 2021 | Americas |
| 2 | Monaco | 8.61 | 2020 | Europe |
| 3 | Seychelles | 6.60 | 2022 | Africa |
| 4 | Greece | 6.58 | 2022 | Europe |
| 5 | Belgium | 6.53 | 2023 | Europe |
| 6 | Lithuania | 6.10 | 2023 | Europe |
| 7 | Portugal | 5.85 | 2022 | Europe |
| 8 | Georgia | 5.64 | 2023 | Asia |
| 9 | Austria | 5.51 | 2023 | Europe |
| 10 | Russia | 5.11 | 2022 | Europe/Asia |
All values in physicians per 1,000 population, derived from WHO/World Bank medical doctors per 10,000 data divided by 10. See methodology section for full notes.
Table 2. Top 30 countries by physicians per 1,000 people — interactive
The full table covers the top 30 countries in the ranking. Use the controls below to search by country name, filter by region or income group, sort by value or YoY change, and toggle between per-1,000 and per-10,000 display. All rows are present in the HTML source for SEO and accessibility; JavaScript only shows, hides and reorders them.
World average (2025 snapshot): ≈ 1.7 physicians per 1,000 people (WHO estimate). OECD average: ≈ 3.7 per 1,000 (OECD Health at a Glance 2023/2024).
| Rank ↕ | Country | Value ↕ | YoY ↕ | Region | Income group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cuba | 9.54 | +0.5% | Americas | Upper-middle |
| 2 | Monaco | 8.61 | 0.0% | Europe | High |
| 3 | Seychelles | 6.60 | +1.2% | Africa | High |
| 4 | Greece | 6.58 | +0.3% | Europe | High |
| 5 | Belgium | 6.53 | +0.6% | Europe | High |
| 6 | Lithuania | 6.10 | +0.8% | Europe | High |
| 7 | Portugal | 5.85 | +1.5% | Europe | High |
| 8 | Georgia | 5.64 | +1.1% | Asia | Upper-middle |
| 9 | Austria | 5.51 | +0.4% | Europe | High |
| 10 | Russia | 5.11 | −0.2% | Europe | Upper-middle |
| 11 | Sweden | 5.07 | +0.9% | Europe | High |
| 12 | Norway | 5.04 | +0.6% | Europe | High |
| 13 | Belarus | 5.01 | −0.3% | Europe | Upper-middle |
| 14 | Switzerland | 4.98 | +0.7% | Europe | High |
| 15 | Germany | 4.51 | +1.8% | Europe | High |
| 16 | Armenia | 4.48 | +2.1% | Asia | Upper-middle |
| 17 | Spain | 4.38 | +0.5% | Europe | High |
| 18 | Czechia | 4.37 | +1.2% | Europe | High |
| 19 | Iceland | 4.29 | +0.9% | Europe | High |
| 20 | Denmark | 4.22 | +0.7% | Europe | High |
| 21 | Italy | 4.20 | +0.5% | Europe | High |
| 22 | Finland | 4.12 | +0.3% | Europe | High |
| 23 | Netherlands | 3.93 | +0.8% | Europe | High |
| 24 | Israel | 3.63 | +1.4% | Asia | High |
| 25 | Slovakia | 3.61 | +0.6% | Europe | High |
| 26 | Azerbaijan | 3.43 | +1.1% | Asia | Upper-middle |
| 27 | Hungary | 3.40 | +0.4% | Europe | High |
| 28 | Slovenia | 3.24 | +1.0% | Europe | High |
| 29 | France | 3.22 | +0.3% | Europe | High |
| 30 | Luxembourg | 3.08 | +0.2% | Europe | High |
Source: WHO, World Bank WDI, OECD Health at a Glance 2023/2024. YoY = year-on-year change vs. prior available data point. All values in physicians per 1,000 population. The table is fully indexable; JS provides search, sort and unit toggle only.
Chart 1. Physicians per 1,000 people — Top 10 vs. world & OECD baselines
The bar chart below compares the physician density of the Top 10 countries with two reference benchmarks: the world average (≈ 1.7) and the OECD average (≈ 3.7). The gap between the leaders and both baselines is substantial, illustrating how concentrated medical workforce capacity is in a small number of high-investing economies.
Values are per 1,000 population, from WHO/World Bank data (latest available year, 2020–2023). OECD average from OECD Health at a Glance 2023/2024. World average from WHO Global Health Observatory.
Methodology: how this ranking is constructed
Indicator definition
The core indicator is physicians (per 1,000 people), defined by the WHO and World Bank as the number of licensed generalist and specialist medical practitioners per 1,000 residents. In most national databases and WHO reporting, the raw figure is expressed as medical doctors per 10,000 population (indicator code SH.MED.PHYS.ZS in the World Bank WDI). All values in this article are converted to per-1,000 terms by dividing by 10 for readability, in line with the OECD Health at a Glance convention.
Data sources
Primary data come from three sources, used in priority order: (1) World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI), indicator SH.MED.PHYS.ZS; (2) WHO Global Health Observatory workforce density series; (3) OECD Health Statistics for OECD member countries where WDI figures differ or are missing. For a small number of territories and micro-states (Monaco, Andorra), WHO and national health authority figures are used.
Reference year and data vintage
The WDI physician density series is updated with a 1–3 year lag. The values used here draw on data points ranging from 2020 to 2024, with the most recent available figure used per country. The ranking is presented as a 2025 snapshot — a harmonised cross-sectional view of the latest cross-country picture rather than a single reference year. Where only older data exist, countries are still included if the figure is within five years and no evidence of major structural change is available.
Measurement considerations and limitations
The indicator has four important limitations that users should keep in mind:
- Licensed vs. practising doctors. Some national systems report all licensed physicians, including those retired, working abroad or not in active clinical practice. This is particularly relevant for Greece, where the ratio of licensed to practising doctors is higher than in most EU peers.
- Geographic distribution. A high national average can mask severe urban–rural imbalances. Russia's high overall density, for instance, coexists with serious shortages in remote Siberian regions.
- Skill-mix effects. Physician density says nothing about the broader clinical workforce: nurses, midwives, pharmacists and community health workers often compensate for lower doctor numbers in some high-performing systems (e.g. the United Kingdom and Nordic countries).
- Cross-border and migration effects. High densities in small states (Monaco, Luxembourg, Seychelles) are partly driven by the ratio of a concentrated services hub to a small residential population, not purely by domestic health system design.
All values are rounded to two decimal places and should be treated as analytical estimates rather than official country statistics. For formal health planning, users should consult the original WHO or World Bank databases directly.
Insights: what the 2025 physician-density ranking reveals
The 2025 ranking highlights several structural patterns in global health workforce distribution that have remained broadly stable since the 2010s but are now intersecting with new pressures — ageing workforces, post-pandemic burnout and accelerating doctor migration flows.
Finding 1: Europe and the post-Soviet space continue to dominate the top of the ranking.
Eight of the top 10 positions belong to European countries or countries with strong Soviet-era health system legacies (Georgia, Russia, Belarus). The Semashko model — a centralised, hospital-heavy system with large cohorts of medical graduates — produced high physician-to-population ratios that persist decades after transition. Even where those systems have been substantially reformed, the legacy of heavy physician training investment has proven durable.
Finding 2: Cuba is a uniquely extreme outlier in a non-OECD context.
Cuba's density of roughly 9.5 physicians per 1,000 is nearly twice the next-highest country (Monaco at 8.6) and more than five times the OECD average. This is the result of a deliberate, decades-long state investment in medical education that has been both a domestic health strategy and a foreign policy instrument through the deployment of tens of thousands of doctors abroad. Cuba's case illustrates that very high physician density is achievable even at middle-income levels — but requires extraordinary commitment of public resources over sustained periods and involves significant trade-offs in terms of physician remuneration and working conditions.
Finding 3: The OECD average is not a useful upper benchmark.
The OECD average of approximately 3.7 per 1,000 hides a wide spread across member states: from France and Mexico at the lower end (around 3.0–3.2) to Austria, Norway and Sweden above 5.0. Multiple EU member states have crossed the 4.0 threshold in the past decade. Importantly, several fast-growing emerging economies — particularly in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus — have closed the gap with Western European peers in physician density terms even as broader income convergence is still underway.
Finding 4: Small-state and micro-state outliers inflate the upper tail.
Monaco and Seychelles both benefit from very small residential populations. A hospital or clinic that serves cross-border patients or a regional hub naturally generates a high physician count relative to official residents. This is a known statistical artefact in per-capita health workforce measures. It does not invalidate the data, but it does mean the top of the ranking is not a homogeneous group: Monaco is not meaningfully comparable to Cuba or Greece in terms of health system design or public health policy lessons.
Finding 5: Year-on-year changes are slow — but cumulative drift matters.
Physician density changes at roughly 0.5–2.0% per year in most countries, driven by new graduates entering the workforce, retirements, and migration flows. This means short-term rankings are stable, but over a decade the cumulative effect can be significant: Portugal has added roughly 1.5 physicians per 1,000 since 2010 through expanded medical school capacity; France has moved very little. Countries that underinvest in medical training today will face visible workforce gaps in 10–15 years, while those expanding intakes now — such as Ireland, Poland and Portugal — are building a future capacity buffer.
How to read this ranking
If you are comparing countries for healthcare access
Physician density is a useful first screen. Countries with more than 4 physicians per 1,000 people generally offer broad access to both primary care and specialists, shorter waiting times and higher consultation rates. Countries below 1 per 1,000 — common across Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South and Southeast Asia — face fundamental capacity constraints that affect virtually every dimension of care delivery. The global range in reported data runs from roughly 9.5 (Cuba) down to below 0.05 in the lowest-income systems, a gap of nearly 200-fold.
If you are a health professional or policymaker
The ranking's most actionable insight is the comparison between similar-income countries at different density levels. France (3.2) and Belgium (6.5) are both high-income EU states with universal coverage, yet they differ by a factor of two in physician density — with materially different access, waiting-time and generalist/specialist balance profiles. This gap is not explained by need or outcomes alone, but by historical decisions about medical school capacity, immigration of foreign-trained doctors and funding models. Policymakers in countries with relatively low density among their income peers have a clear benchmark to work toward.
If you are a researcher or data user
Do not use this indicator as a single proxy for health system performance. Countries with the highest physician density (Cuba, former Soviet states) do not necessarily outperform countries with lower but more strategically deployed workforces (Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom) on outcomes like life expectancy, amenable mortality or patient satisfaction. The indicator should be read alongside nurse density, hospital bed numbers, health expenditure per capita, out-of-pocket cost burden and distributional measures of access across income deciles and geographic areas.
FAQ: physicians per 1,000 people
Primary data sources and technical notes
The values and rankings in this article are compiled from publicly available international health workforce datasets. They are harmonised and rounded for comparability. For formal policy or academic work, always use the original databases with their full methodological documentation.
Indicator SH.MED.PHYS.ZS: "Physicians (per 1,000 people)". The core source for national physician
density, updated annually with a 1–3 year data lag. Expressed in per-1,000 terms in WDI; converted
here from the WHO per-10,000 basis where original WHO figures are used.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS
Density of physicians per 10,000 population. Underlying national registry and survey data compiled
by the WHO for 194 member states, with methodological notes on licensing vs. practising definitions.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/health-workforce
Physicians per 1,000 population for OECD and partner countries, using practising doctor definitions.
Provides the OECD average benchmark used in this article (≈ 3.7 per 1,000 in 2021).
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance.html
Long-run time series (1960–present) of physician density by country and region, sourced from WHO and
World Bank data. Useful for historical convergence analysis and visualisation.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physicians-per-1000-people
Consolidated ranking of countries by doctor density based on WHO/World Bank data. Used for cross-checking
country-level figures in the Top 30 table.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/doctors-per-capita-by-country
Additional cross-check for smaller and non-OECD economies, particularly micro-states where WHO and
World Bank data may be sparse or delayed.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/physicians-density/
All numerical values are approximate and rounded for clarity. Updated: 28 March 2026. Updated to the latest comparable WHO, World Bank and OECD data avail
