OBJECTIVE: To review the literature evaluating the effect of practice guidelines and decision aids on use of surgery and regional variation. BACKGROUND: The use of surgical procedures varies widely across geographic regions. Although practice guidelines and decision aids have been promoted for reducing variation, their true effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: Studies evaluating the influence of clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements, shared decision making and decision aids, or provider feedback of comparative utilization, on rates of surgical procedures were identified through literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. RESULTS: A total of 1946 studies were identified and 27 were included in the final review. Of the 12 studies evaluating implementation of guidelines, 6 reported a significant effect. Those examining overall population-based rates had mixed effects, but all studies evaluating procedure choice described at least a small increase in use of recommended therapy. Three of 5 studies examining the effect of guidelines on regional variation reported a significant reduction after dissemination. Of the 15 studies examining decision aids, 5 revealed significant effects. Many studies of decision aids reported decreases in population-based procedure rates. Nearly all studies evaluating the impact of decision aids on procedure choice reported increases in rates of less invasive procedures. Only one study of decision aids assessed changes in regional variation and found mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Both practice guidelines and decision aids have been proven effective in many clinical contexts. Expanding the clinical scope of these tools and eliminating barriers to implementation will be essential to further efforts directed toward reducing regional variation in the use of surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature evaluating the effect of practice guidelines and decision aids on use of surgery and regional variation. BACKGROUND: The use of surgical procedures varies widely across geographic regions. Although practice guidelines and decision aids have been promoted for reducing variation, their true effectiveness is uncertain. METHODS: Studies evaluating the influence of clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements, shared decision making and decision aids, or provider feedback of comparative utilization, on rates of surgical procedures were identified through literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. RESULTS: A total of 1946 studies were identified and 27 were included in the final review. Of the 12 studies evaluating implementation of guidelines, 6 reported a significant effect. Those examining overall population-based rates had mixed effects, but all studies evaluating procedure choice described at least a small increase in use of recommended therapy. Three of 5 studies examining the effect of guidelines on regional variation reported a significant reduction after dissemination. Of the 15 studies examining decision aids, 5 revealed significant effects. Many studies of decision aids reported decreases in population-based procedure rates. Nearly all studies evaluating the impact of decision aids on procedure choice reported increases in rates of less invasive procedures. Only one study of decision aids assessed changes in regional variation and found mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Both practice guidelines and decision aids have been proven effective in many clinical contexts. Expanding the clinical scope of these tools and eliminating barriers to implementation will be essential to further efforts directed toward reducing regional variation in the use of surgery.
Authors: E A Phelan; R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; J N Weinstein; M A Ciol; W Kreuter; J F Howe Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; E J Rutgers; E J Luiten; J Mulder; P M Bossuyt; J J van Everdingen; P Oosterveld; H C de Haes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Tiller; B Meiser; C Gaff; J Kirk; T Dudding; K-A Phillips; M Friedlander; K Tucker Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Dawn Stacey; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; France Légaré; Richard Thomson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-10-05
Authors: Christian D Helfrich; Laura J Damschroder; Hildi J Hagedorn; Ginger S Daggett; Anju Sahay; Mona Ritchie; Teresa Damush; Marylou Guihan; Philip M Ullrich; Cheryl B Stetler Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: A Shah; D Prieto-Alhambra; S Hawley; A Delmestri; J Lippett; C Cooper; A Judge; M K Javaid Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Bradley N Reames; Christopher P Scally; Timothy L Frankel; Justin B Dimick; Hari Nathan Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Bradley N Reames; Kyle H Sheetz; Seth A Waits; Justin B Dimick; Scott E Regenbogen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Vanessa B Hurley; Hector P Rodriguez; Stephen Kearing; Yue Wang; Ming D Leung; Stephen M Shortell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 6.301