Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40270723›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Implementing value-based healthcare: a scoping review of key elements, outcomes, and challenges for sustainable healthcare systems.

Hanan Khalil, Mary Ameen, Charles Davies, Chaojie Liu

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Hanan KhalilDepartment of Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Mary AmeenFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Charles DaviesDepartment of Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Chaojie LiuDepartment of Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Value-Based Health Care (VBHC) is an increasingly important healthcare paradigm that focuses on maximizing health outcomes relative to the cost of care delivered. Various healthcare organizations have adopted VBHC principles, but significant barriers remain in adapting care models, engaging stakeholders, and measuring outcomes. Moreover, the lack of standardized methods for measuring outcomes and financial sustainability further complicates the transition to VBHC. Understanding the factors that facilitate or hinder VBHC adoption is crucial to informing policy and practice for broader implementation. The objective is to map the literature addressing VBHC concerning population, study characteristics, funding models, outcome measures, and barriers and facilitators. Methods: Following the JBI methodology and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance, a scoping review was undertaken to include primary and secondary research on VBHC across various healthcare settings. Searches were undertaken in nine relevant databases. Peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies published in English were included and analyzed. A total of 145 studies were included after screening 2,725 studies. Results: The findings show that the United States leads VBHC research, contributing 65% of the studies, followed by European countries. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were predominant, focusing on various populations, including hospitals, surgical patients, and cancer patients. Key findings highlight that Value-Based Purchasing and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing models were the most frequently reported funding models. Traditional in-hospital care remains the dominant delivery model, with increasing interest in telemedicine. Outcome measure were diverse, ranging from patient-reported outcomes to cost savings for both patients and providers. Barriers to VBHC implementation include insufficient funding, fee-for-service model persistence, and resistance from healthcare professionals. Facilitators included strong leadership, multidisciplinary collaboration, and the use of digital tools. Conclusion: The review highlights the need for consistent outcome measurements, financial incentives, and improved data transparency to ensure the successful and scalable implementation of VBHC across healthcare systems. While VBHC shows promise in improving healthcare efficiency and quality, challenges remain in aligning financial and operational structures to fully support this paradigm shift.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareUnited StatesValue-Based Health Carefunding modelhealth care delivery innovationspatient centered approachscoping reviewvalue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID40270723
PMCPMC12014573

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.