SynthesisFrontiers in health services2026
Performance-based payment models and value-based health care: a semi-systematic review through theoretical lenses.
Synthesis in Frontiers in health services, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To identify and critically examine the theoretical lenses applied in the literature to conceptualize performance-based and value-based payment models, and to analyze how these frameworks explain their behavioral, organizational, and system-level effects. Methods: A semi-systematic review was conducted in July 2025 across Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL, using a structured search strategy and transparent selection procedures following PRISMA 2020 reporting principles. Eligible empirical and theoretical studies on value- or performance-based payment were extracted using the ADO (Antecedents, Decisions, Outcomes) framework. Results: Studies interpreted incentive effects mainly through incentive theory and principal-agent models, complemented by economics, organizational and institutional theories, implementation science, and ethics. P4P was theorized as a contractual mechanism relying on extrinsic incentives, whereas VBHC was framed as an organizational and normative paradigm requiring care redesign and longitudinal outcome-cost measurement. Theoretical extensions integrated incentive-based payment with chronic care models, disease management, activity-based costing, population health management, and the Quadruple Aim. Institutional and political economy lenses highlighted contextual contingency, while normative theories foregrounded ethical tensions, risks to professional autonomy, workforce well-being, and equity trade-offs. Conclusion: Incentive-based payment reforms are not neutral technical instruments but theory-dependent and institutionally mediated interventions that require alignment with care models, governance arrangements, and ethical safeguards. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/5kv3w/, Open Science Framework (OSF), identifier 5kv3w.
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.