Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37429675›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence.

Martha Kidanemariam, Arwen H Pieterse, Dorine J van Staalduinen, Willem Jan W Bos, Anne M Stiggelbout

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. The VBHC big picture: an umbrella review.BMC health services research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Building the foundations for an international patient-centred outcomes set for psoriasis: A scoping study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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.

Martha KidanemariamBiomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands m.kidanemariam@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1641-0915
Arwen H PieterseBiomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Dorine J van StaalduinenBiomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Willem Jan W BosInternal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Anne M StiggelboutBiomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6293-4509

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.

objectivesWe aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.

designA scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.

resultsWe included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.

conclusionOur study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesValue-Based Health CareDatabases, FactualHealth FacilitiesHealth Services ResearchHumanshealth policyhealth services administration & managementorganisation of health servicespatient-centered care

Identifiers

PMID37429675
PMCPMC10335496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.