Understanding healthcare efficiency-an AI-supported narrative review of diverse terminologies used.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-06983-5
Lotte A Bock, Sanne Vaassen, Walther N K A van Mook, Cindy Y G Noben
{"title":"Understanding healthcare efficiency-an AI-supported narrative review of diverse terminologies used.","authors":"Lotte A Bock, Sanne Vaassen, Walther N K A van Mook, Cindy Y G Noben","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-06983-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physicians have become more responsible for pursuing healthcare efficiency. However, contemporary literature uses multiple terminologies to describe healthcare efficiency. To identify which term is best suitable for medical education to equip physicians to contribute to healthcare efficiency delivery in clinical practice, we performed a narrative review to elucidate these terms' meanings, commonalities, and differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PubMed-database was searched for articles published in 2019-2024 describing healthcare efficiency terminology. Eligible articles conceptually described and applied relevant terminologies for physicians, while empirical studies and practice-specific articles were excluded. The screening was supported by an open-source artificial intelligence tool (ASReview), which prioritizes articles through machine learning. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting articles, resolving disagreements by consensus. Final eligibility was determined through predefined inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 3,655 articles identified, 26 met the inclusion criteria. Key terminologies: cost-effectiveness, high-value care, low-value care, and value-based healthcare, were identified, and explored into more depth. 'Value' is central in all terms, but our findings reveal that the perspectives herein differ on what constitutes value. Within cost-effectiveness, resource allocation to the population's needs drives decision-making-maximizing value at population-level. Within value-based healthcare, patient-centricity guides decision-making-maximizing value at individual patient-level. High-value and low-value care are somewhat ambiguous, depending solely on cost-effectiveness results or patient preferences to determine whether care is considered as low or high value.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cost-effectiveness may be too rigid for patient-physician interactions, while value-based healthcare might not ensure sustainable care. As physicians are both stewards of finite societal resources and advocates of individual patients, integrating cost-effectiveness (resource allocation for population needs) and value-based healthcare (individualized care plans) seems necessary. Both terms emphasize delivering high-value care and avoiding low-value care. We suggest that medical education: (1) train (future) physicians to apply healthcare efficiency principles through case-based discussion, (2) use the cost-effectiveness plane to evaluate treatments, (3) deepen knowledge of diagnostic and treatment procedures' costs within evidence-based guidelines, and (4) enhance communication skills supporting a healthcare efficiency-driven open shared decision-making with patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"408"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11924740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06983-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Physicians have become more responsible for pursuing healthcare efficiency. However, contemporary literature uses multiple terminologies to describe healthcare efficiency. To identify which term is best suitable for medical education to equip physicians to contribute to healthcare efficiency delivery in clinical practice, we performed a narrative review to elucidate these terms' meanings, commonalities, and differences.

Methods: The PubMed-database was searched for articles published in 2019-2024 describing healthcare efficiency terminology. Eligible articles conceptually described and applied relevant terminologies for physicians, while empirical studies and practice-specific articles were excluded. The screening was supported by an open-source artificial intelligence tool (ASReview), which prioritizes articles through machine learning. Two reviewers independently screened the resulting articles, resolving disagreements by consensus. Final eligibility was determined through predefined inclusion criteria.

Results: Out of 3,655 articles identified, 26 met the inclusion criteria. Key terminologies: cost-effectiveness, high-value care, low-value care, and value-based healthcare, were identified, and explored into more depth. 'Value' is central in all terms, but our findings reveal that the perspectives herein differ on what constitutes value. Within cost-effectiveness, resource allocation to the population's needs drives decision-making-maximizing value at population-level. Within value-based healthcare, patient-centricity guides decision-making-maximizing value at individual patient-level. High-value and low-value care are somewhat ambiguous, depending solely on cost-effectiveness results or patient preferences to determine whether care is considered as low or high value.

Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness may be too rigid for patient-physician interactions, while value-based healthcare might not ensure sustainable care. As physicians are both stewards of finite societal resources and advocates of individual patients, integrating cost-effectiveness (resource allocation for population needs) and value-based healthcare (individualized care plans) seems necessary. Both terms emphasize delivering high-value care and avoiding low-value care. We suggest that medical education: (1) train (future) physicians to apply healthcare efficiency principles through case-based discussion, (2) use the cost-effectiveness plane to evaluate treatments, (3) deepen knowledge of diagnostic and treatment procedures' costs within evidence-based guidelines, and (4) enhance communication skills supporting a healthcare efficiency-driven open shared decision-making with patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解医疗保健效率——人工智能支持的对所使用的各种术语的叙述回顾。
背景:医生对追求医疗效率越来越负责。然而,当代文献使用多种术语来描述医疗效率。为了确定哪个术语最适合医学教育,以装备医生在临床实践中提高医疗效率,我们进行了一项叙述性回顾,以阐明这些术语的含义、共性和差异。方法:检索pubmed数据库,检索2019-2024年发表的描述医疗效率术语的文章。符合条件的文章从概念上描述并应用了医生的相关术语,而实证研究和具体实践的文章被排除在外。该筛选得到了开源人工智能工具(ASReview)的支持,该工具通过机器学习对文章进行优先排序。两位审稿人独立筛选结果文章,通过共识解决分歧。通过预定义的纳入标准确定最终资格。结果:在鉴定的3655篇文献中,26篇符合纳入标准。确定了关键术语:成本效益、高价值护理、低价值护理和基于价值的医疗保健,并对其进行了更深入的探讨。“价值”在所有术语中都是核心,但我们的研究结果表明,在什么构成价值方面,这里的观点不同。在成本效益范围内,根据人口需求分配资源,推动在人口层面上实现价值最大化的决策。在基于价值的医疗保健中,以患者为中心指导决策——在个体患者层面实现价值最大化。高价值和低价值护理在某种程度上是模糊的,仅仅取决于成本效益结果或患者偏好来确定护理是低价值还是高价值。结论:对于医患互动而言,成本效益可能过于僵化,而基于价值的医疗保健可能无法确保可持续的护理。由于医生既是有限社会资源的管理者,又是个体患者的倡导者,因此整合成本效益(人口需求的资源分配)和基于价值的医疗保健(个性化护理计划)似乎是必要的。这两个术语都强调提供高价值护理和避免低价值护理。我们建议医学教育:(1)通过案例讨论培训(未来的)医生应用医疗效率原则,(2)使用成本效益平面来评估治疗,(3)在循证指南的基础上加深对诊断和治疗程序成本的了解,(4)增强沟通技巧,支持医疗效率驱动的开放式共享决策与患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Implementation strategies of team-based learning in undergraduate medical curricula: a scoping review. Soft skills during residency in Spain: an analysis of the specialized training programmes. Operationalising readiness for practice in final OSCEs: insights from a mixed-methods study across five Australian medical schools. Contemporary endodontic practices among endodontic specialists in Saudi Arabia: a comparative cross-sectional study. Confounding by gender and academic year masks null effects of a Cooperative Training Community framework on undergraduate research outcomes: a mixed-methods study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1