Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review reveals value-based healthcare improves patient outcomes and reduces costs, indicating leadership and involvement are crucial.
Introduction Value-based healthcare (VBHC) is supplanting the traditional volume-based healthcare paradigm in healthcare systems. In the healthcare industry, value creation focuses on the health outcomes that individuals and institutions achieve while maintaining an optimal cost-benefit ratio. This scoping review aimed to determine the essential components and results of VBHC implementation. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the patient, intervention, and outcome model. PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched using a combination of keywords. The search results were then subjected to a step-by-step screening protocol to identify the related studies and extract data. Results The initial database search identified 3055 studies. After removing duplicates, 1920 studies were eligible for title/abstract screening. Abstract/title screening identified 268 studies, of which 115 studies were selected for full-text screening. Fifteen studies were selected for the scoping review after full-text screening. Analysis revealed that 73% of studies reported improved interdisciplinary collaboration, 67% demonstrated enhanced patient-centered care approaches, and 60% showed measurable cost reductions. Key implementation factors included strong leadership (identified in 87% of studies), patient involvement (reported in 80% of studies), and integrated care units (implemented in 73% of studies). All studies agreed on the importance of VBHC in improving patient care quality and reducing costs. Conclusion VBHC can help improve the overall healthcare experience. The VBHC model is a promising strategy to enhance healthcare effectiveness and long-term viability; however, successful implementation requires careful attention to organizational factors and stakeholder engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almodaimegh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: