Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34120603›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Current developments in delivering customized care: a scoping review.

Etienne Minvielle, Aude Fourcade, Thomas Ricketts, Mathias Waelli

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Digital supportive care in prostate cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil as an induction chemotherapy in oral squamous cell carcinoma in a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Etienne Minviellei3-Centre de Recherche en Gestion, Institut Interdisciplinaire de l'Innovation (UMR 9217), École polytechnique, Batiment Ensta, 828, Boulevard des Maréchaux, 91762, Palaiseau Cedex, France. etienne.minvielle@polytechnique.edu.
Aude FourcadeInstitut Gustave Roussy, 114, rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France.
Thomas RickettsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Mathias WaelliMOS (EA 7418), French School of Public Health, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, there has been a growing interest in health care personalization and customization (i.e. personalized medicine and patient-centered care). While some positive impacts of these approaches have been reported, there has been a dearth of research on how these approaches are implemented and combined for health care delivery systems. The present study undertakes a scoping review of articles on customized care to describe which patient characteristics are used for segmenting care, and to identify the challenges face to implement customized intervention in routine care.

methodsArticle searches were initially conducted in November 2018, and updated in January 2019 and March 2019, according to Prisma guidelines. Two investigators independently searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Science Direct and JSTOR, The search was focused on articles that included "care customization", "personalized service and health care", individualized care" and "targeting population" in the title or abstract. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Disagreements on study selection and data extraction were resolved by consensus and discussion between two reviewers.

resultsWe identified 70 articles published between 2008 and 2019. Most of the articles (n = 43) were published from 2016 to 2019. Four categories of patient characteristics used for segmentation analysis emerged: clinical, psychosocial, service and costs. We observed these characteristics often coexisted with the most commonly described combinations, namely clinical, psychosocial and service. A small number of articles (n = 18) reported assessments on quality of care, experiences and costs. Finally, few articles (n = 6) formally defined a conceptual basis related to mass customization, whereas only half of articles used existing theories to guide their analysis or interpretation.

conclusionsThere is no common theory based strategy for providing customized care. In response, we have highlighted three areas for researchers and managers to advance the customization in health care delivery systems: better define the content of the segmentation analysis and the intervention steps, demonstrate its added value, in particular its economic viability, and align the logics of action that underpin current efforts of customization. These steps would allow them to use customization to reduce costs and improve quality of care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient-Centered CareHumansCare customizationHealth care deliveryLogic of actionMass customizationOrganizational modelPatient-centered carePersonalized medicineTargeting population

Identifiers

PMID34120603
PMCPMC8201906

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.