Hanna Augustsson1,2, Sara Ingvarsson3, Per Nilsen4, Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz3,5, Irene Muli6, Jessica Dervish6, Henna Hasson3,6. 1. Procome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, SE 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. hanna.augustsson@ki.se. 2. Unit for Implementation and Evaluation, Center for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES), Stockholm Region, SE 171 29, Stockholm, Sweden. hanna.augustsson@ki.se. 3. Procome Research Group, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, SE 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Health, Medical and Caring Sciences, Division of Society and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 5. School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 721 23, Västerås, Sweden. 6. Unit for Implementation and Evaluation, Center for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES), Stockholm Region, SE 171 29, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC. AIM: The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care. METHODS: A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group. RESULTS: In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. CONCLUSION: The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. REGISTRATION: The review has not been registered.
BACKGROUND: A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC. AIM: The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care. METHODS: A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group. RESULTS: In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. CONCLUSION: The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. REGISTRATION: The review has not been registered.
Entities:
Keywords:
De-adoption; De-implementation; Disinvestment; Evidence-based; Low-value care
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; N Lynn Henry; Julie R Gralow; Dana K Mirick; William Barlow; Ruth Etzioni; David Mummy; Rahber Thariani; David L Veenstra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan Rosenberg; Abiy Agiro; Marc Gottlieb; John Barron; Peter Brady; Ying Liu; Cindy Li; Andrea DeVries Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael Silverman; Marcus Povitz; Jessica M Sontrop; Lihua Li; Lucie Richard; Sonny Cejic; Salimah Z Shariff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Camelia S Sima; Coral L Atoria; Elena B Elkin; Christopher Anderson; Victoria Blinder; Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Katherine S Panageas; Peter B Bach Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Arianna Rubin Means; Marcia R Weaver; Sarah M Burnett; Martin K Mbonye; Sarah Naikoba; R Scott McClelland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Corrine E Munoz-Plaza; Carla Parry; Erin E Hahn; Tania Tang; Huong Q Nguyen; Michael K Gould; Michael H Kanter; Adam L Sharp Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2016-08-15
Authors: Marta Roczniewska; Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz; Hanna Augustsson; Per Nilsen; Sara Ingvarsson; Henna Hasson Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2021-05-19
Authors: Henry T Stelfox; Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Chloe de Grood; Emma E Sypes; Daniel J Niven; Fiona Clement; Emily A FitzGerald; Shelly Kupsch; Shelly King-Hunter Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Emma E Sypes; Sharon E Straus; Danielle Demiantschuk; Henry Ma; Rebecca Brundin-Mather; Chloe de Grood; Emily A FitzGerald; Sara Mizen; Henry T Stelfox; Daniel J Niven Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Rohit B Sangal; Rachel B Liu; Kelsey O Cole; Craig Rothenberg; Andrew Ulrich; Deborah Rhodes; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 1.200
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Kea Turner; Alecia Clary; Young-Rock Hong; Oliver T Nguyen; Grace Wei; Rebecca B Carlson; Sarah A Birken Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 7.327