Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41947162›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2026

Market strategies used by private hospital providers to consolidate and increase power; a systematic scoping review and evaluative synthesis.

Tom Shore, Shaun Larkin, Adam G Elshaug, Preet Kalkat, Jenn Lacy-Nichols

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and 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

5 authors.

Tom ShoreCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health (MSPGH), Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. t.shore@unimelb.edu.au.
Shaun LarkinLeeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Adam G ElshaugCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health (MSPGH), Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Adam.Elshaug@unimelb.edu.au.
Preet KalkatCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health (MSPGH), Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jenn Lacy-NicholsCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health (MSPGH), Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHospitals controlled by private firms, like many private sectors, will employ market strategies to safeguard their investments and increase the profitability of the services they provide. These market strategies not only determine their financial success but also influences broader outcomes, including health system performance and population health indicators. Yet, strategies that enhance market influence and profitability may at times diverge from those aimed at improving health outcomes. This raises issues around market power imbalances and concerns that hospitals could prioritise profits over health if forced to choose. This systematic scoping review sought to identify and synthesise scholarly evidence on the market strategies employed by private hospitals to expand and consolidate market power.

methodsTitles and abstracts of 1,642 English-language articles sourced from seven databases were screened, with 371 articles assessed for eligibility based on whether they identified the use of market strategies within a hospital setting. Data from 133 relevant studies were extracted and analysed thematically using Porter’s ‘Five Forces’ framework.

resultsWe identified 22 distinct market strategies used by private hospitals, falling under six interconnected strategic objectives: 1) reduce rivalry among existing competitors; 2) raise barriers to market entry by new competitors; 3) counter the threat of market disruptors and drive patient health service usage towards hospital care provided by the hospital; 4) increase hospital buyer power by exerting leverage over upstream actors; 5) Increase hospital seller power by exerting leverage over downstream organisational actors; and 6) increase hospital seller power by exerting leverage over downstream individual actors. Although international in scope, the United States accounted for over two-thirds of the studies included. This partly reflects the dominance of U.S. scholarship in these areas.

conclusionThe resulting typological framework offers a structured means of analysing hospital market strategies internationally, within and across jurisdictions. Additionally, it can aid the identification of pertinent public policies, such as those addressing merger control, unfair trading practices, and public procurement. This works to bolster policy-analytic functions that can be influential in rectifying market-power imbalances.

Indexed as

Economic CompetitionHospitals, PrivateHumansCommercial determinants of healthFor-profitHealth outcomesHealth systemsMarket powerMarket strategyNot-for-profitPolicyPrivate hospitals

Identifiers

PMID41947162
PMCPMC13188322

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.