Evaluating trends in private equity ownership and impacts on health outcomes, costs, and quality: systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on trends and impacts of private equity (PE) ownership of healthcare operators. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and SSRN. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Empirical research studies of any design that evaluated PE owned healthcare operators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were impact of PE ownership on health outcomes, costs to patients or payers, costs to operators, and quality. The secondary outcome measures were trends and prevalence of PE ownership of healthcare operators. DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies were classified as finding either beneficial, harmful, mixed, or neutral impacts of PE ownership on main outcome measures. Results across studies were narratively synthesized and reported. Risk of bias was evaluated using ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions). RESULTS: The electronic search identified 1778 studies, with 55 meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies spanned eight countries, with most (n=47) analyzing PE ownership of healthcare operators in the US. Nursing homes were the most commonly studied healthcare setting (n=17), followed by hospitals and dermatology settings (n=9 each); ophthalmology (n=7); multiple specialties or general physician groups (n=5); urology (n=4); gastroenterology and orthopedics (n=3 each); surgical centers, fertility, and obstetrics and gynecology (n=2 each); and anesthesia, hospice care, oral or maxillofacial surgery, otolaryngology, and plastics (n=1 each). Across the outcome measures, PE ownership was most consistently associated with increases in costs to patients or payers. Additionally, PE ownership was associated with mixed to harmful impacts on quality. These outcomes held in sensitivity analyses in which only studies with moderate risk of bias were included. Health outcomes showed both beneficial and harmful results, as did costs to operators, but the volume of studies for these outcomes was too low for conclusive interpretation. In some instances, PE ownership was associated with reduced nurse staffing levels or a shift towards lower nursing skill mix. No consistently beneficial impacts of PE ownership were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in PE ownership rapidly increased across almost all healthcare settings studied. Such ownership is often associated with harmful impacts on costs to patients or payers and mixed to harmful impacts on quality. Owing to risk of bias and frequent geographic focus on the US, conclusions might not be generalizable internationally. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022329857.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,033 | 0,158 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».