ArticleBMJ open2024
Alternative payment models in Dutch hospital care: what works, how, why and under what circumstances? Protocol for a realist evaluation study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards proactive, integrated care across boundaries: panel management next level.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Barriers and Strategies for Inclusion of Value-Based Healthcare in Contract Negotiations in the Netherlands: Study Among Hospital and Insurer Executives.The International journal of health planning and management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe predominant provider payment models in healthcare, particularly fee-for-service, hinder the delivery of high-value care and can encourage healthcare providers to prioritise the volume of care over the value of care. To address these issues, healthcare providers, payers and policymakers are increasingly experimenting with alternative payment models (APMs), such as shared savings (SS) and bundled payment (BP). Despite a growing body of literature on APMs, there is still limited insight into what works in developing and implementing successful APMs, as well as how, why and under what circumstances. This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to (1) identify these circumstances and reveal the underlying mechanisms through which outcomes are achieved and (2) identify transferrable lessons for successful APMs in practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Drawing on realist evaluation principles, this study will employ an iterative three-step approach to elicit a programme theory that describes the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes of APMs. The first step involves a literature review to identify the initial programme theory. The second step entails empirical testing of this theory via a multiple case study design including seven SS and BP initiatives in Dutch hospital care. We will use various qualitative and quantitative methods, including interviews with involved stakeholders, document analysis and difference-in-differences analyses. In the final step, these data and the applicable formal theories will be combined to test and refine the (I)PT and address the research objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management (Project ID ETH2122-0170). Where necessary, informed consent will be obtained from study participants. Among other means, study results will be disseminated through a publicly available manual for stakeholders (eg, healthcare providers and payers), publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and (inter)national conference presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.