Dataset Information

Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care. METHODS:Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public's perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making). RESULTS:The 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making. CONCLUSIONS:Efforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

SUBMITTER: Sypes EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7137456 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.

Sypes Emma E EE de Grood Chloe C Clement Fiona M FM Parsons Leigh Jeanna J Whalen-Browne Liam L Stelfox Henry T HT Niven Daniel J DJ

Implementation science : IS 20200407 1

<h4>Background</h4>Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care.<h4>Methods</h4>Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. C ...[more]

PMID: 32264926

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of low-value care (LVC) is a persistent problem that calls for knowledge about strategies for de-implementation. However, studies are dispersed across many clinical fields, and there is no overview of strategies that can be used to support the de-implementation of LVC. The extent to which strategies used for implementation are also used in de-implementing LVC is unknown. The aim of this scoping review is to (1) identify strategies for the de-implementation of LVC described in the scientific literature and (2) compare de-implementation strategies to implementation strategies as specified in the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) and strategies added by Perry et al. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted according to recommendations outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Four scientific databases were searched, relevant articles were snowball searched, and the journal Implementation Science was searched manually for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies of strategies designed to reduce the use of LVC. Two reviewers conducted all abstract and full-text reviews, and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data-charting form. The strategies were first coded inductively and then mapped onto the ERIC compilation of implementation strategies.ResultsThe scoping review identified a total of 71 unique de-implementation strategies described in the literature. Of these, 62 strategies could be mapped onto ERIC strategies, and four strategies onto one added category. Half (50%) of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies were used for de-implementation purposes. Five identified de-implementation strategies could not be mapped onto any of the existing strategies in ERIC.ConclusionsSimilar strategies are used for de-implementation and implementation. However, only a half of the implementation strategies included in the ERIC compilation were represented in the de-implementation studies, which may imply that some strategies are being underused or that they are not applicable for de-implementation purposes. The strategies assess and redesign workflow (a strategy previously suggested to be added to ERIC), accountability tool, and communication tool (unique new strategies for de-implementation) could complement the existing ERIC compilation when used for de-implementation purposes.

Project description:BackgroundA 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.AimThe aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThe 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.RegistrationThe review has not been registered.

Project description:ObjectivesA scoping review was conducted to answer the question: How is critical care nursing (CCN) performed in low-income countries and lower middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs)?DesignScoping review guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.Data sourcesSix electronic databases and five web-based resources were systematically searched to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and April 2021.Review methodsThe search results received two-stage screening: (1) title and abstract (2) full-text screening. For sources of evidence to progress, agreement needed to be reached by two reviewers. Data were extracted and cross-checked. Data were analysed, sorted by themes and mapped to region and country.ResultsLiterature was reported across five georegions. Nurses with a range formal and informal training were identified as providing critical care. Availability of staff was frequently reported as a problem. No reports provided a comprehensive description of CCN in LICs/LMICs. However, a variety of nursing practices and non-clinical responsibilities were highlighted. Availability of equipment to fulfil the nursing role was widely discussed. Perceptions of inadequate resourcing were common. Undergraduate and postgraduate-level preparation was poorly described but frequently reported. The delivery of short format critical care courses was more fully described. There were reports of educational evaluation, especially regarding internationally supported initiatives.ConclusionsDespite commonalities, CCN is unique to regional and socioeconomic contexts. Nurses work within a complex team, yet the structure and skill levels of such teams will vary according to patient population, resources and treatments available. Therefore, a universal definition of the CCN role in LIC/LMIC health systems is likely unhelpful. Research to elucidate current assets, capacity and needs of nurses providing critical care in specific LIC/LMIC contexts is needed. Outputs from such research would be invaluable in supporting contextually appropriate capacity development programmes.

Project description:BackgroundThe provision of low-value physiotherapy services in low back pain management is a known but complex phenomenon. Thus, this scoping review aims to systematically map existing research designs and instruments of the field in order to discuss the current state of research methodologies and contextualize results to domains and perspectives of a referred low-value care typology. Ultimately, results will be illustrated and transferred to conditions of the German health care setting as care delivery conditions of physiotherapy in Germany face unique particularities.MethodsThe development of this review is guided by the analysis framework of Arksey and O'Malley. A two-stage, audited search strategy was performed in Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, and google scholar. All types of observational studies were included. Identified articles needed to address a pre-determined population, concept, and context framework and had to be published in English or German language. The publication date of included articles was not subject to any limitation. The applied framework to assess the phenomenon of low-value physiotherapy services incorporated three domains (care effectiveness; care efficiency; patient alignment of care) and perspectives (provider; patient; society) of care.ResultsThirty-three articles met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-nine percent of articles focused on the appropriateness of physiotherapeutic treatments, followed by education and information (30%), the diagnostic process (15%), and goal-setting practice (12%). Study designs were predominantly cross-sectional (58%). Data sources were mainly survey instruments (67%) of which 50% were self-developed. Most studies addressed the effectiveness domain of care (73%) and the provider perspective (88%). The perspective of patient alignment was assessed by 6% of included articles. None of included articles assessed the society perspective. Four methodical approaches of included articles were rated to be transferrable to Germany.ConclusionIdentified research on low-value physiotherapy care in low back pain management was widely unidimensional. Most articles focused on the effectiveness domain of care and investigated the provider perspective. Most measures were indirectly and did not monitor low-value care trends over a set period of time. Research on low-value physiotherapy care in secondary care conditions, such as Germany, was scarce.RegistrationThis review has been registered on open science framework ( https://osf.io/vzq7k https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PMF2G ).

Project description:ObjectivesLow-value care can harm patients and healthcare systems. Despite a decade of global endeavours, low value care has persisted. Identification of barriers and enablers is essential for effective deimplementation of low-value care. This scoping review is an evidence summary of barriers, enablers and features of effective interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice worldwide.DesignA mixed-methods scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework.Data sourcesMedline, CINAHL, Embase, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to 5 December 2022.Eligibility criteriaPrimary studies which employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore deimplementation of low-value care in an EM setting and reported barriers, enablers or interventions were included. Reviews, protocols, perspectives, comments, opinions, editorials, letters to editors, news articles, books, chapters, policies, guidelines and animal studies were excluded. No language limits were applied.Data extraction and synthesisStudy selection, data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Barriers, enablers and interventions were mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment.ResultsThe search yielded 167 studies. A majority were quantitative studies (90%, 150/167) that evaluated interventions (86%, 143/167). Limited provider abilities, diagnostic uncertainty, lack of provider insight, time constraints, fear of litigation, and patient expectations were the key barriers. Enablers included leadership commitment, provider engagement, provider training, performance feedback to providers and shared decision-making with patients. Interventions included one or more of the following facets: education, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback, clinical decision support, nudge, clinical champions and training. Multifaceted interventions were more likely to be effective than single-faceted interventions. Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions was influenced by fidelity of the intervention facets. Use of behavioural change theories such as the Theoretical Domains Framework in the published studies appeared to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to deimplement low-value care.ConclusionHigh-fidelity, multifaceted interventions that incorporated education, stakeholder engagement, audit/feedback and clinical decision support, were administered daily and lasted longer than 1 year were most effective in achieving deimplementation of low-value care in emergency departments. This review contributes the best available evidence to date, but further rigorous, theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are needed to supplement the growing body of evidence to effectively deimplement low-value care in emergency medicine practice.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10-34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging-in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit-is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children.MethodsA scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included.ResultsA total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations.ConclusionsA comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Project description:ImportanceOveruse of surgical procedures is increasing around the world and harms both individuals and health care systems by using resources that could otherwise be allocated to addressing the underuse of effective health care interventions. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is some limited country-specific evidence showing that overuse of surgical procedures is increasing, at least for certain procedures.ObjectivesTo assess factors associated with, extent and consequences of, and potential solutions for low-value surgical procedures in LMICs.Evidence reviewWe searched 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Index Medicus) for studies published from database inception until April 27, 2022, with no restrictions on date or language. A combination of MeSH terms and free-text words about the overuse of surgical procedures was used. Studies examining the problem of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs were included and categorized by major focus: the extent of overuse, associated factors, consequences, and solutions.FindingsOf 4276 unique records identified, 133 studies across 63 countries were included, reporting on more than 9.1 million surgical procedures (median per study, 894 [IQR, 97-4259]) and with more than 11.4 million participants (median per study, 989 [IQR, 257-6857]). Fourteen studies (10.5%) were multinational. Of the 119 studies (89.5%) originating from single countries, 69 (58.0%) were from upper-middle-income countries and 30 (25.2%) were from East Asia and the Pacific. Of the 42 studies (31.6%) reporting extent of overuse of surgical procedures, most (36 [85.7%]) reported on unnecessary cesarean delivery, with estimated rates in LMICs ranging from 12% to 81%. Evidence on other surgical procedures was limited and included abdominal and percutaneous cardiovascular surgical procedures. Consequences of low-value surgical procedures included harms and costs, such as an estimated US $3.29 billion annual cost of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in China. Associated factors included private financing, and solutions included social media campaigns and multifaceted interventions such as audits, feedback, and reminders.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found growing evidence of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs, which may generate significant harm and waste of limited resources; the majority of studies reporting overuse were about unnecessary cesarean delivery. Therefore, a better understanding of the problems in other surgical procedures and a robust evaluation of solutions are needed.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension and diabetes are global health challenges requiring effective management to mitigate their considerable burden. The successful management of hypertension and diabetes requires the completion of a sequence of stages, which are collectively termed the care cascade.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to describe the characteristics of studies on the hypertension and diabetes care cascade and identify potential interventions as well as factors that impact each stage of the care cascade.MethodsThe method of this scoping review has been guided by the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science using terms pertinent to hypertension, diabetes, and specific stages of the care cascade. Articles published after 2011 were considered, and we included all studies that described the completion of at least one stage of the care cascade of hypertension and diabetes. Study selection was independently performed by 2 paired authors. Descriptive statistics were used to elucidate key patterns and trends. Inductive content analysis was performed to generate themes regarding the barriers and facilitators for improving the care cascade in hypertension and diabetes management.ResultsA total of 128 studies were included, with 42.2% (54/128) conducted in high-income countries. Of them, 47 (36.7%) focused on hypertension care, 63 (49.2%) focused on diabetes care, and only 18 (14.1%) reported on the care of both diseases. The majority (96/128, 75.0%) were observational in design. Cascade stages documented in the literature were awareness, screening, diagnosis, linkage to care, treatment, adherence to medication, and control. Most studies focused on the stages of treatment and control, while a relative paucity of studies examined the stages before treatment initiation (76/128, 59.4% vs 52/128, 40.6%). There was a wide spectrum of interventions aimed at enhancing the hypertension and diabetes care cascade. The analysis unveiled a multitude of individual-level and system-level factors influencing the successful completion of cascade sequences in both high-income and low- and middle-income settings.ConclusionsThis review offers a comprehensive understanding of hypertension and diabetes management, emphasizing the pivotal factors that impact each stage of care. Future research should focus on upstream cascade stages and context-specific interventions to optimize patient retention and care outcomes.

Dataset Information

Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.

Publications

Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets