Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37250089›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023

The immaturity of patient engagement in value-based healthcare-A systematic review.

Michael van der Voorden, Wim S Sipma, Margriet F C de Jong, Arie Franx, Kees C T B Ahaus

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Frameworks for Action: A Scoping Review of Organisational Patient Engagement Models in Healthcare.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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
  11. Review
  12. "It's My Life and It's Now or Never"-Transplant Recipients Empowered From a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael van der Voorden *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Wim S Sipma *Department of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Margriet F C de JongDepartment of Nephrology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Arie FranxDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kees C T B AhausDepartment of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In recent years, Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) has been gaining traction, particularly in hospitals. A core VBHC element is patient value, i.e., what matters most to the patient and at what cost can this be delivered. This interpretation of value implies patient engagement in patient-doctor communication. Although patient engagement in direct care in the VBHC setting is well described, patient engagement at the organizational level of improving care has hardly been studied. This systematic review maps current knowledge regarding the intensity and impact of patient engagement in VBHC initiatives. We focus on the organizational level of a continuous patient engagement model. Methods: We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using five electronic databases. The search strategy yielded 1,546 records, of which 21 studies were eligible for inclusion. Search terms were VBHC and patient engagement, or similar keywords, and we included only empirical studies in hospitals or transmural settings at the organizational level. Results: We found that consultation, using either questionnaires or interviews by researchers, is the most common method to involve patients in VBHC. Higher levels of patient engagement, such as advisory roles, co-design, or collaborative teams are rare. We found no examples of the highest level of patient engagement such as patients co-leading care improvement committees. Conclusion: This study included 21 articles, the majority of which were observational, resulting in a limited quality of evidence. Our review shows that patient engagement at the organizational level in VBHC initiatives still relies on low engagement tools such as questionnaires and interviews. Higher-level engagement tools such as advisory roles and collaborative teams are rarely used. Higher-level engagement offers opportunities to improve healthcare and care pathways through co-design with the people being served. We urge VBHC initiatives to embrace all levels of patient engagement to ensure that patient values find their way to the heart of these initiatives.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationValue-Based Health CareCommunicationHospitalsHumansObservational Studies as TopicQualitative Researchco-designcommunicationco-productionpatient engagementpatient perspectivequality improvementvalue-based healthcare (VBHC)

Identifiers

PMID37250089
PMCPMC10213745
OpenAlexW4378746571

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.