SynthesisBMC health services research2019
Assessing value in health care: using an interpretive classification system to understand existing practices based on a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Insights into implementation planning for point-of-care testing to guide treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: a mixed methods feasibility study.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Towards a New Understanding of Unmet Medical Need.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Describing practices of priority setting and resource allocation in publicly funded health care systems of high-income countries.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: a scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworks.Health economics review · 2021Article
- Integrative Review of Managed Entry Agreements: Chances and Limitations.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing adequate strategies to assess the value of health services plays a central role in the effort to deal with the financial pressures faced by health care systems worldwide. This study aimed to understand which approaches to value assessment have been used in developed countries.
methodsWe conducted a rapid review and a gray literature search to identify value assessment frameworks. A two-stage screening process was utilized to identify existing approaches and cluster similar frameworks. In addition, we developed an interpretive classification system to make sense of existing approaches.
resultsOne thousand one hundred seventy-six references were identified and 38 papers were selected for full-review. Among these 38 articles, 22 distinct approaches to assess value of health care interventions were identified and classified according to four points: 1) use of single or multiple considerations to base value estimates; 2) use of disease-specific or generic criteria; 3) reliance on process-based or outcomes-based consideration; and 4) type of input and evidence considered.
conclusionsThe contextual nature of value assessment in health care becomes evident with the diversity of existing approaches. Despite the predominance of cases relying on the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the measure of value, this approach has not been sufficient to meet the needs of decision-makers. The use of multiple criteria has become more and more important, as well as the consideration of patient-reported measures. Considerations of costs are not always explicit and consistent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.