MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179812932 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001293

Scoping review of balanced scorecards for use in healthcare settings: development and implementation

2021· article· en· W3179812932 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria Bohm, Diane Lacaille, Nicole Spencer, Claire Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersInstitute of Musculoskeletal Health and ArthritisCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaArthritis Society
KeywordsBalanced scorecardHealth careVariety (cybernetics)Process managementBusinessKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Balanced scorecards (BSCs) were developed in the early 1990s in corporate settings as a strategic performance management tool that emphasised measurement from multiple perspectives. Since their introduction, BSCs have been adapted for a variety of industries, including to healthcare settings. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the application of BSCs in healthcare. METHODS: Medline, Embase and CINHAL databases were searched using keywords and medical subject headings for 'balanced scorecard' and related terms from 1992 to 17/04/2020. Title and abstract screening and full text review were conducted in duplicate by two reviewers. Studies describing the development and/or implementation of a BSC in a healthcare setting were included. Data were abstracted using pilot-tested forms and reviewed for key themes and findings. RESULTS: 8129 records were identified and 841 underwent a full text review. 87 articles were included. Over 26 countries were represented and the majority of BSCs were applied at a local level (54%) in hospital settings (41%). While almost all discussed Kaplan and Norton's original BSC (97%), only 69% described alignment with a strategic plan. Patients/family members were rarely involved in development teams (3%) which typically were comprised of senior healthcare leaders/administrators. Only 21% of BSCs included perspectives using identical formatting to the original BSC description. Lessons learnt during development addressed three main themes: scorecard design, stakeholder engagement and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: BSC frameworks have been used in various healthcare settings but frequently undergo adaptation from the original description in order to suit a specific healthcare context. Future BSCs should aim to include patients/families to promote patient-centred healthcare systems. Considering the heterogeneity evident in development approaches, methodological guidance in this area is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0270.035
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.400
GPT teacher head0.648
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207