Public–private partnerships (or PPPs) encompass a broad spectrum of public sector infrastructure and service initiatives. Recently, some scholars have undertaken literature review studies of the various definitions of the concept of PPPs and its research traditions, identifying several distinct PPP research approaches. This article aims to: (1) enhance the findings of these literature reviews; (2) identify the cited works and authors (intellectual structure) in the published research on PPPs; (3) define the subfields that constitute the intellectual structure of PPP research fields. The methodology is based on the bibliometric techniques of citation and author co-citation analysis applied to published research on PPPs included in the Social Science Citation Index.

Background: Due to an increasingly elderly population, a higher incidence of chronic diseases and higher expectations regarding public service provision, healthcare services are under increasing strain to cut costs while maintaining quality. The importance of promoting systems of co-produced health between stakeholders has gained considerable traction both in the literature and in public sector policy debates. This study provides a comprehensive map of the extant literature and identifies the main themes and future research needs. Methods: A quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out consisting of a performance analysis, science mapping, and a scientific collaboration analysis. Web of Science (WoS) was chosen to extract the dataset; the search was refined by language, i.e. English, and type of publication, i.e. journal academic articles and reviews. No time limitation was selected. Results: The dataset is made up of 295 papers ranging from 1994 to May 2019. The analysis highlighted an annual percentage growth rate in the topic of co-production of about 25%. The articles retrieved are split between 1225 authors and 148 sources. This fragmentation was confirmed by the collaboration analysis, which revealed very few long-lasting collaborations. The scientific production is geographically polarised within the EU and Anglo-Saxon countries, with the United Kingdom playing a central role. The intellectual structure consists of three main areas: public administration and management, service management and knowledge translation literature. The co-word analysis confirms the relatively low scientific maturity of co-production applied to health services. It shows few well-developed and central terms, which refer to traditional areas of co-production (e.g. public health, social care), and some emerging themes related to social and health phenomena (e.g. the elderly and chronic diseases), the use of technologies, and the recent patient-centred approach to care (patient involvement/engagement). Conclusions: The field is still far from being mature. Empirical practices, especially regarding co-delivery and co-management as well as the evaluation of their real impacts on providers and on patients are lacking and should be more widely investigated.

Purpose: Understanding the outcomes of co-creation (CC) in healthcare is increasingly gaining multidisciplinary scientific interest. Although more and more service management scholars have pointed out the benefits of cross-fertilization between the various research fields, the literature on this topic is still scattered and poorly integrated. This study aims to summarize and integrate multiple strands of extant knowledge CC by identifying the outcomes of health CC and the determinants of these outcomes and their relationships.Design/methodology/approach: A structured literature review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 4,189 records were retrieved from the six databases; 1,983 articles were screened, with 161 included in the qualitative thematic analysis.Findings: This study advances a comprehensive framework for healthcare CC based on a thorough analysis of the outcomes and their determinants, that is, antecedents, management activities and institutional context. Extant research rarely evaluates outcomes from a multidimensional and systemic perspective. Less attention has been paid to the relationship among the CC process elements.Research limitations/implications: This study offers an agenda to guide future studies on healthcare CC. Highlighting some areas of integration among different disciplines further advances service literature.Practical implications: The framework offers an operational guide to better shape managerial endeavors to facilitate CC, provide direction and assess multiple outcomes.Originality/value: This is the first extensive attempt to synthesize and integrate multidisciplinary knowledge on CC outcomes in healthcare settings by adopting a systematic perspective on the overall process.

Innovations in supply chain (SC) management are rapidly spreading in public healthcare sectors across developed countries. In particular, healthcare managers and policymakers view SC innovation as a way to lower costs and improve quality. However, although the related rhetoric is strong, the literature provides little evidence of the benefits and performance of such SC initiatives. Above all, the literature lacks a sound conceptual framework for appraising SC management in public healthcare organisations. We argue that the public nature of healthcare and the specificities of the healthcare context require a specific theoretical approach to identifying the appropriate dimensions of SC initiatives to evaluate. Drawing from an extensive literature review and a longitudinal analysis of an inductive case study – a public hospital network developed in Tuscany (ESTAV), Italy – this work proposes a framework for assessing supply chain performance in the public healthcare sector. In addition, an empirical analysis was conducted to test the soundness and robustness of the framework, and this article presents conclusions regarding its applicability and managerial implications.

Technological innovation in healthcare yields better health outcomes but also drives healthcare expenditure, and governments are struggling to maintain an appropriate balance between patient access to modern care and the economic sustainability of healthcare systems. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and centralized procurement are increasingly used to govern the introduction and diffusion of new technologies in an effort to make access to innovation financially sustainable. However, little empirical evidence is available to determine how they affect the selection of new technologies and unit prices. This paper focuses on medical devices (MDs) and investigates the combined effect of various HTA governance models and procurement practices on the two steps of the MD purchasing process (i.e., selecting the product and setting the unit price). Our analyses are based on primary data collected through a national survey of Italian public hospitals. The Italian National Health Service is an ideal case study because it is highly decentralized and because regions have adopted different HTA governance models (i.e., regional, hospital-based, double-level or no HTA), often in combination with centralized regional procurement programs. Hence, the Italian case allows us to test the impact of different combinations of HTA models and procurement programs in the various regions. The results show that regional HTA increases the probability of purchasing the costliest devices, whereas hospital-based HTA functions more like a cost-containment unit. Centralized regional procurement does not significantly affect MD selection and is associated with a reduction in the MD unit price: on average, hospitals located in regions with centralized procurement pay 10.1% less for the same product. Hospitals located in regions with active regional HTA programs pay higher prices for the same device (+23.2% for inexpensive products), whereas hospitals that have developed internal HTA programs pay 8.3% on average more for the same product.