ReviewCureus2026
Proportionality in Healthcare Governance: A Conceptual Review.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.