Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33846147›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Expert consensus on moving towards a value-based healthcare system in the Netherlands: a Delphi study.

Gijs Steinmann, Diana Delnoij, Hester van de Bovenkamp, Rogier Groote, Kees Ahaus

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07337057 (PROMs in Implant Dentistry), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT07337057 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

PROMs in Implant Dentistry: Development of a Dental Implant Standard Set

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorErasmus Medical CenterRan2024 to 2027Enrolled1,000ConditionsTooth Loss / RehabilitationArmsImplantology
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Building a patient-centred nationwide integrated cardiac care registry: intermediate results from the Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evaluating patient participation in value-based healthcare: Current state and lessons learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  16. Value-Based Healthcare Delivery: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Gijs SteinmannHealth Care Governance, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands steinmann@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-9478-3725
Diana DelnoijHealth Care Governance, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
Hester van de BovenkampHealth Care Governance, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.
Rogier GrooteDepartment of Operations, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Kees AhausErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Department Health Services Management & Organization, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile the uptake of value-based health care (VBHC) is remarkable, uncertainty prevails regarding the most important actions and practices in establishing a value-based healthcare system. In this paper, we generate expert consensus on the most important aspects of VBHC.

designThe Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on the most important practices in moving towards a value-based healthcare system. SETTING AND

participantsA Dutch expert panel consisting of nine members participated in a two-round survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We developed 39 initial items based on the pioneering literature on VBHC and recent health policies in the Netherlands. Experts rated the importance of each item on a 4-point Likert scale. Experts could change items or add new ones as they saw fit. We retained items that were rated (very) important by ≥80% of the panel.

resultsAfter two survey rounds, 32 items (72%) were included through expert consensus. Experts unanimously agree on the importance of shared decision-making, with this item uniquely obtaining the maximum score. Experts also reached consensus on the importance of outcome measurements, a focus on medical conditions, and full cycles of care. No consensus was reached on the importance of benchmarking.

conclusionThis paper provides new insight into the most important actions and practices for establishing a value-based healthcare system in the Netherlands. Interestingly, several of our findings contrast with the pioneering literature on VBHC. This raises the question whether VBHC's widespread international uptake indicates its actual implementation, or rather that the original concept primarily serves as an inspiring idea.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansNetherlandsSurveys and Questionnaireshealth policyhealth services administration & managementorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID33846147
PMCPMC8047988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.