Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32928203›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Redefining value: a discourse analysis on value-based health care.

Gijs Steinmann, Hester van de Bovenkamp, Antoinette de Bont, Diana Delnoij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Value-Based Healthcare Delivery: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Social Network Analysis of Influences on Residents' Value-Based Decisions.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gijs SteinmannErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands. steinmann@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9478-3725
Hester van de BovenkampErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.
Antoinette de BontErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.
Diana DelnoijErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000, DR, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundToday's remarkable popularity of value-based health care (VBHC) is accompanied by considerable ambiguity concerning the very meaning of the concept. This is evident within academic publications, and mirrored in fragmented and diversified implementation efforts, both within and across countries.

methodThis article builds on discourse analysis in order to map the ambiguity surrounding VBHC. We conducted a document analysis of publicly accessible, official publications (n = 22) by actors and organizations that monitor and influence the quality of care in the Netherlands. Additionally, between March and July 2019, we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews (n = 23) with national stakeholders.

resultsOur research revealed four discourses, each with their own perception regarding the main purpose of VBHC. Firstly, we identified a Patient Empowerment discourse in which VBHC is a framework for strengthening the position of patients regarding their medical decisions. Secondly, in the Governance discourse, VBHC is a toolkit to incentivize providers. Thirdly, within the Professionalism discourse, VBHC is a methodology for healthcare delivery. Fourthly, in the Critique discourse, VBHC is rebuked as a dogma of manufacturability. We also show, however, that these diverging lines of reasoning find common ground: they perceive shared decision-making to be a key component of VBHC. Strikingly, this common perception contrasts with the pioneering literature on VBHC.

conclusionsThe four discourses will profoundly shape the diverse manners in which VBHC moves from an abstract concept to the practical provision and administration of health care. Moreover, our study reveals that VBHC's conceptual ambiguity largely arises from differing and often deeply rooted presuppositions, which underlie these discourses, and which frame different perceptions on value in health care. The meaning of VBHC - including its perceived implications for action - thus depends greatly on the frame of reference an actor or organization brings to bear as they aim for more value for patients. Recognizing this is a vital concern when studying, implementing and evaluating VBHC.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansNetherlandsAmbiguityDiscourse analysisNetherlandsShared decision-makingValue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID32928203
PMCPMC7488985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.