In search of value: Vienna School of Art History, Austrian value theory and the others

Svoboda, František

doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.006

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this definition was based on the review of numerous healthcare stakeholders’ views. This may be an indication that new constructive conversations about how to integrate economic and accounting concepts in healthcare are needed [ 57 , 165 ]. After-all, value was not always seen as a ratio between perceived benefits and perceived costs [ 166 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After-all, value was not always seen as a ratio between perceived benefits and perceived costs [ 166 ]. It was initially viewed as multi-dimensional by earlier economic scholars [ 57 , 166 – 168 ]. Therefore, other QI programme effects that are regarded as valuable must not only be considered [ 61 ], but prioritised where appropriate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Realism, reality exists regardless of human perception, whilst Relativism views reality as based on human perception and socially constructed. Lack of clarity about concepts can lead to poor communication, poor application in research and in practice [ 52 , 57 ]. As healthcare organisations are complex dynamic contexts, modern philosophy insights could support relations between QI implementers and investors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review

Thusini

Milenova

Nahabedian

et al. 2022

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Return on Investment (ROI) is increasingly being used to evaluate financial benefits from healthcare Quality Improvement (QI). ROI is traditionally used to evaluate investment performance in the commercial field. Little is known about ROI in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse and develop ROI as a concept and develop a ROI conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost–benefit, cost-effectiveness, value). We combined this terms with healthcare and QI. Included articles discussed at least three organisational QI benefits, including financial or patient benefits. We synthesised the different ways in which ROI or return-on-investment concepts were used and discussed by the QI literature; first the economically focused, then the non-economically focused QI literature. We then integrated these literatures to summarise their combined views. Results We retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. The included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as reports and conceptual literature. Fifteen of 68 articles were directly focused on QI programme economic outcomes. Of these, only four focused on ROI. ROI related concepts in this group included cost-effectiveness, cost–benefit, ROI, cost-saving, cost-reduction, and cost-avoidance. The remaining articles mainly mentioned efficiency, productivity, value, or benefits. Financial outcomes were not the main goal of QI programmes. We found that the ROI concept in healthcare QI aligned with the concepts of value and benefit, both monetary and non-monetary. Conclusion Our analysis of the reviewed literature indicates that ROI in QI is conceptualised as value or benefit as demonstrated through a combination of significant outcomes for one or more stakeholders in healthcare organisations. As such, organisations at different developmental stages can deduce benefits that are relevant and legitimate as per their contextual needs. Trial registration Review registration: PROSPERO; CRD42021236948.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%