Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42692493›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2026

A new conceptual framework for evaluating healthcare quality: shifting from reactive treatment to proactive health preservation.

Keisuke Kanda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Keisuke KandaInternal Medicine, Yoshikawa Chuo Sogo Hospital, Yoshikawa, Japan keisukekanda@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2922-5612

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Delivery of Health CareQuality of Health CareHumansLife ExpectancyGlobal HealthHealth systemsHealth systems evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42692493
PMCPMC13548235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.