Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41625027›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Proportionality in Healthcare Governance: A Conceptual Review.

Stylianos Papalexandris, Thomas Fotiadis, Lamprini Seremeti, Dimitrios Folinas, Sofia D Anastasiadou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Stylianos PapalexandrisDepartment of Production and Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, GRC.
Thomas FotiadisDepartment of Management and Production Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, GRC.
Lamprini SeremetiDepartment of Regional and Economic Development, Agricultural University of Athens, Amfissa, GRC.
Dimitrios FolinasDepartment of Supply Chain Management, International Hellenic University, Katerini, GRC.
Sofia D AnastasiadouSchool of Economics, Administration and Computer Science, Neapolis University Pafos, Pafos, CYP.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare governance requires leadership that balances organizational efficiency, staff well-being, and patient-centered care. Leadership decisions often involve dilemmas where competing values and uncertainty render decision-making implicit and opaque. Current leadership models provide limited guidance on how such decisions can be made ethically accountable. This conceptual paper introduces the principle of proportionality as a normative framework for healthcare leadership. Drawing on its established role in legal and ethical reasoning, the three-stage proportionality test, suitability, necessity, and balance, is adapted to guide leadership choices in organizational and clinical contexts. Applying proportionality to leadership enables implicit judgments to be reframed as explicit reasoning processes. The suitability stage ensures that measures are aligned with intended objectives; the necessity stage requires consideration of available alternatives; and the balance stage evaluates whether the burdens imposed are proportionate to the benefits achieved. This structured approach strengthens the ethical justification of leadership actions, enhances transparency, and mitigates arbitrariness. It also contributes to trust-building among staff, patients, and the wider public by demonstrating that trade-offs are navigated with fairness, necessity, and rational balance. Leadership guided by proportionality offers a novel conceptual contribution to healthcare governance. By embedding structured ethical reasoning into decision-making, accountability and legitimacy are promoted in contexts of uncertainty and competing demands. The proposed framework provides a foundation for further empirical investigation and offers practical implications for leadership training, organizational policy, and the development of ethically robust healthcare governance models.

Indexed as

decision-making in healthcareemotional intelligencehealthcare governancehealthcare leadershipprinciple of proportionality

Identifiers

PMID41625027
PMCPMC12860507

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.