Dataset Information

Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE:Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured. OBJECTIVE:To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW:We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences. FINDINGS:A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N?=?101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N?=?16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.

SUBMITTER: Maratt JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6712188 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

Maratt Jennifer K JK Kerr Eve A EA Klamerus Mandi L ML Lohman Shannon E SE Froehlich Whit W Bhatia R Sacha RS Saini Sameer D SD

Journal of general internal medicine 20190627 9

<h4>Importance</h4>Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured.<h4>Objective</h4>To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care.<h4>Evidence review</h4>We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to ident ...[more]

PMID: 31250366

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is estimated that 20-50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging.MethodsAn electronic database search was completed in Medline - Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed.ResultsThe search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase.ConclusionsMulti-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.

Project description:BackgroundClinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting.MethodsQualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clinician champions were used to identify strategies, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of strategies. Clinician champions were asked to rank the importance of these activities and indicate which one of the six most important activities they would be willing to discuss in an interview. A 30-min semi-structured interview was conducted with each clinician about the activity they selected and thematically analyzed.ResultsTwelve Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified. The top six strategies discussed during interviews were: build a coalition, conduct a local needs assessment, develop a formal implementation blueprint, conduct educational meetings, use facilitation, and develop clinical reminders. Common themes that emerged across all interviews were the use of data to engage clinicians in conversations, including the patient's perspective in designing the interventions, and investing the time upfront to plan and launch the initiative because of the inherent challenges of relinquishing a service.ConclusionsClinician champions identified multiple strategies as important when de-implementing a low-value service. Many were used to engage in conversations with stakeholders, including leadership, providers, and patients, to increase buy-in and support, challenge beliefs, promote behavior change, and gather insights about next steps in their effort. Future work is needed to better understand how prepare clinicians for this role and to understand the mechanisms through which these strategies might be effective.

Project description:BackgroundMany decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care.ResultsFrom 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy.ConclusionsDe-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. DESIGN:A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context. RESULTS:We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%). CONCLUSIONS:This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Project description:BackgroundThe choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects in early phase trials (which informed the design of the subsequent Phase III trials) are not valid guides to the differences between the interventions for the main outcomes of the Phase III trials. We undertook a systematic review (1) to generate a list of outcome measures used in critical care trials, (2) to determine the variability in the outcome reporting in the respiratory subgroup and (3) to create a smaller list of potential early phase endpoints in the respiratory subgroup.MethodsData related to outcomes were extracted from studies published in the six top-ranked critical care journals between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes were classified into subcategories and categories. A subset of early phase endpoints relevant to the respiratory subgroup was selected for further investigation. The variability of the outcomes and the variability in reporting was investigated.ResultsA total of 6905 references were retrieved and a total of 294 separate outcomes were identified from 58 studies. The outcomes were then classified into 11 categories and 66 subcategories. A subset of 22 outcomes relevant for the respiratory group were identified as potential early phase outcomes. The summary statistics, time points and definitions show the outcomes are analysed and reported in different ways.ConclusionThe outcome measures were defined, analysed and reported in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for synthesising data in systematic reviews and planning definitive trials. This review once again highlights an urgent need for standardisation and validation of surrogate outcomes reported in critical care trials. Future work should aim to validate and develop a core outcome set for surrogate outcomes in critical care trials.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a lack of standardization regarding how to assess and categorize alcohol intake in older adults. The aim of this study was to systematically review methods used in epidemiological studies to define drinking patterns and measure alcohol consumption among older adults.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for studies published from January 2009 to April 2021. Studies were included if they were observational studies with a quantitative design; the mean age of the participants was ≥ 65 years; questionnaires, screening tools, or diagnostic tools were used to define alcohol consumption; and alcohol consumption was self-reported.ResultsOf 492 studies considered, 105 were included. Among the 105 studies, we detected 19 different drinking patterns, and each drinking pattern had a wide range of definitions. The drinking patterns abstaining from alcohol, current drinking, and risk drinking had seven, 12 and 21 diverse definitions, respectively. The most used questionnaire and screening tools were the quantity-frequency questionnaire, with a recall period of 12 months, and the full and short versions of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, respectively.ConclusionNo consensus was found regarding methods used to assess, define, and measure alcohol consumption in older adults. Identical assessments and definitions must be developed to make valid comparisons of alcohol consumption in older adults. We recommend that alcohol surveys for older adults define the following drinking patterns: lifetime abstainers, former drinkers, current drinkers, risk drinking, and heavy episodic drinking. Standardized and valid definitions of risk drinking, and heavy episodic drinking should be developed. The expanded quantity-frequency questionnaire including three questions focused on drinking frequency, drinking volume, and heavy episodic drinking, with a recall period of 12 months, could be used.

Project description:BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

Project description:IntroductionImplementation science has traditionally focused on the implementation of evidence-based practices, but the field has increasingly recognized the importance of addressing de-implementation (i.e., the process of reducing low-value care). Most studies on de-implementation strategies have used a combination of strategies without addressing factors that sustain the use of LVC and there is a lack of information about which strategies are most effective and what mechanisms of change might underlie these strategies. Applied behavior analysis is an approach that could be a potential method to gain insights into the mechanisms of de-implementation strategies to reduce LVC. Three research questions are addressed in this study: What contingencies (three-term contingencies or rule-governing behavior) related to the use of LVC can be found in a local context and what strategies can be developed based on an analysis of these contingencies?; Do these strategies change targeted behaviors?; How do the participants describe the strategies' contingencies and the feasibility of the applied behavior analysis approach?Materials and methodsIn this study, we used applied behavior analysis to analyze contingencies that maintain behaviors related to a chosen LVC, the unnecessary use of x-rays for knee arthrosis within a primary care center. Based on this analysis, strategies were developed and evaluated using a single-case design and a qualitative analysis of interview data.ResultsTwo strategies were developed: a lecture and feedback meetings. The results from the single-case data were inconclusive but some of the findings may indicate a behavior change in the expected direction. Such a conclusion is supported by interview data showing that participants perceived an effect in response to both strategies.ConclusionThe findings illustrate how applied behavior analysis can be used to analyze contingencies related to the use of LVC and to design strategies for de-implementation. It also shows an effect of the targeted behaviors even though the quantitative results are inconclusive. The strategies used in this study could be further improved to target the contingencies better by structuring the feedback meetings better and including more precise feedback.

Project description:ObjectiveInterventions improving parent satisfaction can reduce parent stress, may improve parent-infant bonding and infant outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review neonatal interventions relating to parents of infants of all gestations where an outcome was parent satisfaction.MethodsWe searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, HMIC, Maternity and Infant Care between 1 January 1946 and 1 October 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort studies and other non-randomised studies if participants were parents of infants receiving neonatal care, interventions were implemented in neonatal units (of any care level) and ≥1 quantitative outcome of parent satisfaction was measured. Included studies were limited to the English language only. We extracted study characteristics, interventions, outcomes and parent involvement in intervention design. Included studies were not sufficiently homogenous to enable quantitative synthesis. We assessed quality with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (randomised) and the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) (non-randomised studies).ResultsWe identified 32 studies with satisfaction measures from over 2800 parents and grouped interventions into 5 themes. Most studies were non-randomised involving preterm infants. Parent satisfaction was measured by 334 different questions in 29 questionnaires (only 6/29 fully validated). 18/32 studies reported higher parent satisfaction in the intervention group. The intervention theme with most studies reporting higher satisfaction was parent involvement (10/14). Five (5/32) studies reported involving parents in intervention design. All studies had high risk of bias.ConclusionsMany interventions, commonly relating to parent involvement, are reported to improve parent satisfaction. Inconsistency in satisfaction measurements and high risk of bias makes this low-quality evidence. Standardised, validated parent satisfaction measures are needed, as well as higher quality trials of parent experience involving parents in intervention design.Prospero registration numberCRD42017072388.

Dataset Information

Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

Publications

Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets