ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Bringing the value equation into play in value-based healthcare.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) proposes a framework for managing healthcare systems, connecting health and economic outcomes to determine the value of healthcare. The value equation remains ambiguous, serving more as a theoretical framework than a practical decision-making tool. The key challenge lies in estimating and interpreting the value equation. The purpose of this study is to provide a methodological proof-of-concept to address this gap. Methods: A cohort of 330 patients diagnosed with breast cancer with a 12-month follow-up from two healthcare centres was used to illustrate the proposed approach. Patient-reported outcomes and economic-related outcomes (PROs and EROs) were collected. The numerator was defined as the patient-centred outcome-adjusted life years (PACELYs), a novel metric proposed here that combines PROs and survival, whilst the denominator was expressed in euros. Moving towards a marginal perspective, Incremental value (IV) and value curve were proposed as decision-making measures. Results: The mean PACELYs for healthcare centres A and B were between 69.85 and 73.24, and the costs for these centres were 12,129€-13,404€. The InIV showed that centre B generated an additional PACELY at 376€ compared to A, reflecting differences in organisational efficiency. The value curve showed variation in efficiency across VBHC thresholds, depending on the healthcare context. Discussion: This is the first proof-of-concept to estimate a value figure as a patient-centred efficiency measure for comparing healthcare providers within VBHC, with two pivotal transformations of the value equation: the use of PACELYs and the adoption of a marginal perspective, thereby positioning it as a decision-making tool in VBHC. The estimated figure will facilitate comprehensive benchmarking across centres and be applicable to other medical conditions. Further research should focus on designing value-based payment systems.
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.