ArticleBMC health services research2026
Having and eating the cake? The centralisation paradox in decentralised healthcare governance: a scoping review.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecentralisation in healthcare governance is widely promoted to enhance managerial autonomy, responsiveness, and performance. However, empirical evidence suggests that managers operating in decentralised systems continue to rely on centrally coordinated organisational structures. This interdependence remains insufficiently conceptualised in existing research.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to synthesise empirical studies examining how central coordination in organisational systems shapes managers' effective decision space in decentralised healthcare organisations. Searches were performed in PubMed and CINAHL, complemented by snowballing. The review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Data were analysed using a conceptual synthesis approach informed by paradox theory and the decision space framework.
findingsFour interrelated themes were identified: (1) delegated authority and experienced autonomy, (2) the role of organisational capacity in enabling decision space, (3) persistent central coordination within decentralised systems, and (4) autonomy dependent on coordination. The findings show that while decentralisation expands formal decision-making authority, the effective exercise of this authority depends on centrally coordinated enabling systems, including digital infrastructure, administrative support, and financial management. This interdependence reflects a consistent pattern across contexts.
conclusionsThe study proposes the concept of a centralisation paradox, demonstrating that managerial autonomy in decentralised healthcare governance is contingent upon central coordination. By extending the decision space model, the study proposes a dual-domain conceptualisation distinguishing between professional decision-making and enabling systems. This reframing advances theoretical understanding of decentralised governance and offers practical insights for designing healthcare organisations that balance local autonomy with system-wide coordination.
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.