ReviewBMJ global health2026
A new conceptual framework for evaluating healthcare quality: shifting from reactive treatment to proactive health preservation.
Review in BMJ global 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare quality is commonly assessed using clinical outcomes and service-based metrics that begin after illness has occurred. While such measures are important, they often overlook healthcare's fundamental purpose: to preserve health, prevent disease and minimise reliance on medical intervention. Drawing from global definitions of healthcare and quality-and philosophical insights from Sunzi's Art of War-this paper proposes a new framework that shifts evaluation from reactive treatment to proactive health preservation. A two-dimensional model is introduced, plotting age-standardised healthy life expectancy on the vertical (Y) axis against purchasing power parity adjusted per capita healthcare expenditure on the horizontal (X) axis. To enable standardised comparison across countries, both indicators are converted into z-scores, allowing the positioning of healthcare systems within a normalised, intuitive visual space. The ideal health system occupies the upper-left corner of this graph, where long, healthy lives are achieved with minimal spending. By examining relative positions on this graph, the model enables strategic policy discussions about value-based trade-offs between health outcomes and spending. The model also highlights a structural tension between the goals of healthcare and the incentives of capitalist systems, where prevention may paradoxically reduce profitability. By redefining quality in terms of sustained wellbeing rather than service provision, the framework offers a timely, intuitive tool for evaluating system performance. It invites policymakers, researchers and the public to reconsider what constitutes progress in health systems-emphasising that the best healthcare may not be the one that delivers the most care, but the one that is least needed.
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.