Dataset Information

Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project. METHODS:Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were relevance, feasibility, evidence-based and strength. These were discussed in editors' meetings and subsequently revised. Two different processes for developing recommendations within national clinical practice guidelines were designed and piloted (processes A and B). Process A was based on a published guideline. The recommendations are drafted by an editor and revised and approved by the guideline development group. In process B the development of the recommendations is integrated with guideline production or update. Choosing Wisely recommendations were then drafted for half of the published CC Guidelines. An additional process (process C) was designed for producing independent recommendations outside a guideline. RESULTS:At least one Choosing Wisely recommendation could be identified from 39 out of 52 reviewed guidelines. Of the 106 recommendations drafted, 62 (58%) were accepted for publication. The main reasons for rejection were inability to give a strong recommendation (n?=?18, 41%) and insufficient relevance (n?=?14, 32%). Two thirds (n?=?41, 66%) of the published recommendations were based on high to moderate level of evidence, and 18% (n?=?11) on low or very low level of evidence, whereas for the rest, the quality of evidence was not critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS:Choosing Wisely recommendations can be produced systematically from existing clinical practice guidelines. The rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine ensure high-quality recommendations. We welcome the use of our processes and methods describes in this article by other guideline-producing organizations.

SUBMITTER: Sipila R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6729023 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.

Sipilä Raija R Mäkelä Marjukka M Komulainen Jorma J

BMC health services research 20190905 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project.<h4>Methods</h4>Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were rele ...[more]

PMID: 31488146

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChoosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.FindingsSeventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not 'patient facing'; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions.ConclusionsThis study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Choosing Wisely holds promise for increasing awareness of low-value care in physiotherapy. However, it is unclear how physiotherapists' view Choosing Wisely recommendations. The aim of this study was to evaluate physiotherapists' feedback on Choosing Wisely recommendations and investigate agreement with each recommendation. SETTING:The Australian Physiotherapy Association emailed a survey to all 20 029 physiotherapist members in 2015 seeking feedback on a list of Choosing Wisely recommendations. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 9764 physiotherapists opened the email invitation (49%) and 543 completed the survey (response rate 5.6%). Participants were asked about the acceptability of the wording of recommendations using a closed (Yes/No) and free-text response option (section 1). Then using a similar response format, participants were asked whether they agreed with each Choosing Wisely recommendation (sections 2-6). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:We performed a content analysis of free-text responses (primary outcome) and used descriptive statistics to report agreement and disagreement with each recommendation (secondary outcome). RESULTS:There were 872 free-text responses across the six sections. A total of 347 physiotherapists (63.9%) agreed with the 'don't' style of wording. Agreement with recommendations ranged from 52.3% (electrotherapy for back pain) to 76.6% (validated decision rules for imaging). The content analysis revealed that physiotherapists felt that blanket rules were inappropriate (range across recommendations: 13.9%-30.1% of responses), clinical experience is more valuable than evidence (11.7%-28.3%) and recommendations would benefit from further refining or better defining key terms (7.3%-22.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Although most physiotherapists agreed with both the style of wording for Choosing Wisely recommendations and with the recommendations, their feedback highlighted a number of areas of disagreement and suggestions for improvement. These findings will support the development of future recommendations and are the first step towards increasing the impact Choosing Wisely has on physiotherapy practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unknown to what extent Choosing Wisely recommendations about income-generating treatments apply to members of the society generating the recommendations. The primary aim of this study is to determine the proportion of Choosing Wisely recommendations targeting income-generating treatments, and whether recommendations from professional societies on income-generating treatments are more likely to target members or non-members. The secondary aim is to determine the prevalence of qualified statements, and whether qualified statements are more likely to appear in recommendations targeting income-generating or non-income-generating treatments that apply to members. METHODS:We performed a content analysis of all Choosing Wisely recommendations, with data extracted from Choosing Wisely websites. Two researchers coded recommendations as test or treatment-based, for or against a procedure, containing qualified statements, income-generating and applying to members. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third researcher. A Chi-squared test evaluated whether society recommendations on income-generating treatments were more likely to target members or non-members; and whether qualified statements were more likely to appear in recommendations targeting income-generating or non-income-generating treatments that apply to members. RESULTS:We found 1293 Choosing Wisely recommendations (48.3% tests and 48.6% treatments). Ninety-eight treatment recommendations targeted income-generating treatments (17.8%), and recommendations on income-generating treatments were less likely to target members compared to non-members (15.6% vs. 40.4%, p?<?0.001). Nearly half of all recommendations were qualified (41.9%), with a similar proportion of recommendations targeting income-generating and non-income-generating treatments that apply to members containing qualified statements (49.4% vs. 42.0%, p?=?0.23). CONCLUSIONS:Many societies provide Choosing Wisely recommendations that minimise impact on their own members. Only 20% of treatment recommendations target income-generating treatments, and of these recommendations mostly target non-members. Many recommendations are also qualified. Increasing the number of recommendations from societies that are unqualified and target member clinicians responsible for de-implementation of low-value and costly treatments should be a priority.

Project description:IntroductionPaediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) guidelines have been updated several times in recent years. We assessed implementation of ART guidelines among under-five children to inform the transition to universal paediatric ART in Tanzania.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of infants (0 to 11 months) and children (12 to 59 months) enrolled between 2010 and 2012 using routinely collected data. Infants and children were initiated on ART according to the 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations/2009 Tanzania guidelines (universal ART for infants). Cumulative ART initiation incidence and correlates of ART initiation were examined using competing risk methods accounting for attrition (death or loss to follow-up). Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models were used to examine attrition on ART and its correlates.ResultsA total of 1679 children were enrolled at 69 clinics: 469 (28%) infants and 1210 (74%) children. Infant cumulative ART initiation incidence was 59.6, 71.3 and 78.0% at one, three and six months of follow-up. Infants were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 [adjusted sub-hazard ratio (AsHR)=2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7 to 2.8] or 2011 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART from prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (AsHR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1) and inpatient wards (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 2.0) versus being enrolled from voluntary counselling and testing centres. Attrition at 12 months on ART was 33.9% and was more likely among infants with WHO Stage 4 [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR)=3.1. 95% CI: 1.8 to 5.2] and severe malnutrition (AHR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.9).Among 599 children eligible for ART at enrollment, cumulative ART initiation incidence was 51.8, 68.6 and 76.1% at one, three, and six months. Children were more likely to start ART if enrolled in 2012 (AsHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) or 2011 (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.8) compared to 2010; they were more likely to start ART at primary health facilities (AsHR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.0) and less likely at urban facilities (AsHR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9) and facilities without CD4 testing on site (AsHR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9). Attrition at 12 months on ART was 23.1% and was more likely with severe malnutrition (AHR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.0), WHO Stage 4 (AHR=3.0, 95% CI: 1.0 to 8.5) and outpatient enrolees (AHR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.7).ConclusionsOur findings suggest the gradual adoption of guidelines over calendar time. Interventions to expedite ART initiation and support retention on ART are needed.

Project description:Importance:Primary care clinicians, who are increasingly responsible for caring for the growing population of cancer survivors, may be unfamiliar with appropriate cancer surveillance strategies. Clinical practice guidelines can inform cancer follow-up care and surveillance testing. Vague recommendations and inconsistencies among guidelines can lead to overuse and underuse of health care resources and have a negative impact on cost and quality of survivorship care. Objective:To examine the specificity and consistency of recommendations for surveillance after active treatment across cancer guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national cancer guidelines from North America and Europe published since 2010 addressing posttreatment care for survivors of the 9 most common cancers. We categorized surveillance modalities into history and physical examinations, tumor markers, diagnostic procedures (eg, colonoscopy), and imaging. Within each guideline, we classified individual recommendations into 5 categories: (1) risk-based recommendation, (2) recommendation for surveillance, (3) addressed but no clear recommendation, (4) recommendation against surveillance, or (5) cases in which surveillance was not addressed. We reviewed each surveillance recommendation for frequency and a stop date, evaluated consistency among guidelines, and analyzed associations between the organizations proposing the guidelines and recommendation characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Description of guideline recommendations for cancer surveillance. Results:We identified 41 guidelines published between January 1, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Eighty-five percent of guidelines (35) were from professional organizations. Ambiguous recommendations (ie, modality not discussed or discussed without a clear recommendation) were present in 83% of guidelines (34), and 44% (18) recommended against at least 1 test. European guidelines were more likely than North American guidelines to contain ambiguous recommendations (100% vs 68%; P?<?.01). Recommendations commonly specified testing frequency (from 88% [14 of 16] for tumor markers to 92% [24 of 26] for procedures and/or imaging) but infrequently provided a definitive stop time. Cross-sectional imaging recommendations varied among guidelines for each cancer. For example, among breast cancer guidelines, surveillance computed tomographic scans were recommended against in 2, discussed without a clear recommendation in 1, and not addressed in 3 guidelines. Conclusions and Relevance:Guidelines addressing the care of cancer survivors have low specificity and consistency. As guidelines continue to be revised, developers should clarify recommendations with simple, nonambiguous, definitive language for or against the use of specific tests to optimize care quality and resource utilization.

Dataset Information

Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.

Publications

Highlighting the need for de-implementation - Choosing Wisely recommendations based on clinical practice guidelines.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure