Harriet Hiscock1,2,3, Rachel Jane Neely4,2, Hayley Warren2, Jason Soon5, Andrew Georgiou6. 1. Health Services Research Unit, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; harriet.hiscock@rch.org.au. 2. Community Health Services Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia. 3. Department of Pediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Health Services Research Unit, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia. 5. Policy and Advocacy, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Sydney, Australia; and. 6. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Unnecessary imaging and pathology procedures represent low-value care and can harm children and the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of interventions designed to reduce unnecessary pediatric imaging and pathology testing. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Studies we included were: reports of interventions to reduce unnecessary imaging and pathology testing in pediatric populations; from developed countries; written in the English language; and published between January 1, 1996, and April 29, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using a Cochrane group risk of bias tool. Level of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. RESULTS: We found 64 articles including 44 before-after, 14 interrupted time series, and 1 randomized controlled trial. More effective interventions were (1) multifaceted, with 3 components (mean relative reduction = 45.0%; SD = 28.3%) as opposed to 2 components (32.0% [30.3%]); or 1 component (28.6%, [34.9%]); (2) targeted toward families and clinicians compared with clinicians only (61.9% [34.3%] vs 30.0% [32.0%], respectively); and (3) targeted toward imaging (41.8% [38.4%]) or pathology testing only (48.8% [20.9%]), compared with both simultaneously (21.6% [29.2%]). LIMITATIONS: The studies we included were limited to the English language. CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions include audit and feedback, system-based changes, and education. Future researchers should move beyond before-after designs to rigorously evaluate interventions. A relatively novel approach will be to include both clinicians and the families they manage in such interventions.
CONTEXT: Unnecessary imaging and pathology procedures represent low-value care and can harm children and the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of interventions designed to reduce unnecessary pediatric imaging and pathology testing. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. STUDY SELECTION: Studies we included were: reports of interventions to reduce unnecessary imaging and pathology testing in pediatric populations; from developed countries; written in the English language; and published between January 1, 1996, and April 29, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using a Cochrane group risk of bias tool. Level of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine grading system. RESULTS: We found 64 articles including 44 before-after, 14 interrupted time series, and 1 randomized controlled trial. More effective interventions were (1) multifaceted, with 3 components (mean relative reduction = 45.0%; SD = 28.3%) as opposed to 2 components (32.0% [30.3%]); or 1 component (28.6%, [34.9%]); (2) targeted toward families and clinicians compared with clinicians only (61.9% [34.3%] vs 30.0% [32.0%], respectively); and (3) targeted toward imaging (41.8% [38.4%]) or pathology testing only (48.8% [20.9%]), compared with both simultaneously (21.6% [29.2%]). LIMITATIONS: The studies we included were limited to the English language. CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions include audit and feedback, system-based changes, and education. Future researchers should move beyond before-after designs to rigorously evaluate interventions. A relatively novel approach will be to include both clinicians and the families they manage in such interventions.
Authors: Roi Piñeiro-Pérez; Carlos Ochoa-Sangrador; David López-Martín; Leticia Martínez-Campos; Cristina Calvo-Rey; Bruno José Nievas-Soriano Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 3.860
Authors: Wylie Burke; Ellen Wright Clayton; Susan M Wolf; Susan A Berry; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Ralph Hall; Diane Korngiebel; Anne-Marie Laberge; Bonnie S LeRoy; Amy L McGuire Journal: Genet Med Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ben Young; Andrew W Fogarty; Rob Skelly; Dominick Shaw; Nigel Sturrock; Mark Norwood; Peter Thurley; Sarah Lewis; Tessa Langley; Jo Cranwell Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 2.796