ArticleBMC health services research2025
Balancing quality collaborative supervision and tripartite satisfaction in elderly healthcare public-private partnerships: an evolutionary game and simulation analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Public-private partnerships for UAV-assisted emergency medical services in aging communities: an evolutionary game approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
China’s rapidly growing elderly population, shifting social patterns, and economic developments have significantly impacted traditional family-based caregiving, leading to the widespread adoption of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models for institutional care. Effective elderly care PPPs require quality collaborative supervision among the government, the private sector, and the public to ensure tripartite satisfaction and promote social well-being. However,challenges such as service quality failures and disputes in several regional elderly care PPP projects stem from insufficient government supervision and limited public participation, leading to information asymmetry, incomplete contracts, and suboptimal service quality. Existing research lacks comprehensive models that address the public’s role as a key stakeholder and the dynamic interplay among critical variables affecting PPP stability. This study uses evolutionary game theory (EGT) to explore the strategic interactions between the government, private sector, and public in elderly care PPPs. The model incorporates key factors such as reputation, damage compensation, and government intervention to enhance public participation and tripartite satisfaction. Findings reveal that (1) high-quality services, active public participation, and efficient government supervision are crucial for effective collaborative supervision. (2) Stakeholders’ initial willingness to cooperate, compensation for public interest damages, reputation, and punitive measures are key determinants for stability. (3) Compensation for public interest damages and guaranteed incomes significantly enhance public participation in the supervision process. MATLAB simulations validate the model’s stability, specifically, the simulation shows that the system evolves effectively toward the ideal state when public damage compensation exceeds participation costs and penalties for low-quality services outweigh the cost savings from providing them. Based on these findings, we propose targeted strategic measures such as calibrating compensation and penalty levels based on these threshold relationships to improve collaborative quality and ensure satisfaction among all stakeholders in elderly healthcare PPPs in China, with broader applicability to other sectors and regions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.