ArticleBMC health services research2026
Desirability and feasibility of value-based healthcare in the Dutch Military Health System: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValue-Based Healthcare (VBHC) emphasises delivering high-quality care measured by patient outcomes rather than the volume of services. Although mostly partially implemented in civilian health systems, VBHC integration within military health systems (MHS) lags behind. Given current geopolitical developments and the unique operational demands of military healthcare, this study aimed to assess the desirability and feasibility of implementing VBHC in the Dutch MHS.
methodsA cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted in 2024 among active-duty personnel in the Netherlands Armed Forces. Stratified sampling targeted three stakeholder groups—care recipients, care providers, and care facilitators—followed by voluntary response recruitment. A self-administered online questionnaire assessed familiarity with VBHC, perceived desirability and feasibility of its implementation, and prioritised components for application. The survey was structured around case-based scenarios derived from the Linnean VBHC framework, adapted to the military context. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Likert-scale medians; open-ended responses were analysed thematically.
resultsOf 912 eligible participants, 290 completed the survey (32% response rate), comprised of 45% care recipients, 33% care providers, and 22% care facilitators. Most respondents (67%) had over 15 years of military service; 58% held higher education degrees. Familiarity with VBHC increased throughout the survey. Overall, 96% of respondents perceived VBHC as valuable for the Dutch MHS. Notably, 64% believed VBHC could benefit both regular and operational care. A collaborative implementation approach involving all three stakeholder groups was preferred by 82%. However, concerns were raised about feasibility in large-scale combat operations, highlighting the need to align VBHC components with military readiness and mission-critical objectives.
conclusionThis study provides initial evidence supporting broad acceptance of VBHC within the Dutch MHS, particularly for non-operational military healthcare contexts. While desirability was high, practical applicability raised concerns, especially regarding combat and operational care settings. These findings suggest the potential for VBHC integration, but emphasize the necessity for a military-specific adaptation. Future research should explore targeted implementation strategies that balance patient-centered outcomes with the unique operational demands of military healthcare environments.
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.