Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation. METHODS: This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). 'Raw text' determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews. RESULTS: In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included 'lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation' (n = 90, 21%), 'entrenched norms and clinicians' resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and 'patient demands and preferences' (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included 'stakeholder collaboration and communication' (n = 43, 15%), and 'availability of credible evidence' (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234 .

Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Patients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour. METHODS: Three phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions "would this change your health behaviour" and "would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider". Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: From the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question "would this change your health behaviour" two patient partners agreed 'yes' on 27% of patient resources. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.

Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many 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. METHODS: MEDLINE, 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. RESULTS: From 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. CONCLUSIONS: De-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. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

Higher Body Mass Index Is Associated with Iron Deficiency in Children 1 to 3 Years of Age.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between body mass index (BMI) and iron deficiency in early childhood, while considering the influence of low-grade systemic inflammation. STUDY DESIGN: Healthy children ages 1-3 years were included in a cross-sectional analysis. Age- and sex-standardized World Health Organization BMI z score (zBMI) was calculated using height/length and weight measurements; iron status was assessed by serum ferritin; inflammation was assessed by C-reactive protein (CRP). Children with CRP ≥10 mg/L were excluded because this may indicate acute systemic inflammation. Adjusted multivariable regression analyses were used to investigate the association between zBMI and both serum ferritin (µg/L), and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <12 µg/L). We performed prespecified subgroup analyses according to CRP level (normal [≤1.0 mg/L] and low-grade inflammation [>1.0 mg/L to <10.0 mg/L]). RESULTS: Of 1607 children included, 20% were categorized as with zBMI >1, 13% had iron deficiency, and 18% had low-grade inflammation. Higher zBMI was associated with lower serum ferritin (-1.51 µg/L, 95% CI -2.23, -0.76, P < .0001) and increased odds of iron deficiency (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10, 1.50, P = .002). Though there was no interaction between zBMI and CRP for the adjusted linear regression model (P = .79) or logistic regression model (P = .43), children with low-grade inflammation had a higher serum ferritin (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher zBMI is associated with increased risk for iron deficiency in children between 1 and 3 years, and should be considered as a risk factor in targeted screening. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between serum ferritin and CRP for children in all weight categories. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01869530.

Context, Culture, and the Complexity of De-Implementing Low-Value Care Comment on "Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".

Low-value care contributes to poor quality of care and wasteful spending in healthcare systems. In Verkerk and colleagues' recent qualitative study, interviews with low-value care experts from Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands identified a broad range of nationally relevant social, system, and knowledge factors that promote ongoing use of low-value care. These factors highlight the complexity of the problem that is persistent use of low-value care and how it is heavily influenced by public and medical culture as well as healthcare system features. This commentary discusses how these findings integrate within current low-value care and de-implementation literature and uses specific low-value care examples to highlight the importance of considering context, culture, and clinical setting when considering how to apply these factors to future de-implementation initiatives.

Evidence for overuse of cardiovascular healthcare services in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Overuse of cardiovascular healthcare services, defined as the provision of low-value (ineffective, harmful, cost-ineffective) tests, medications and procedures, may be common and associated with increased patient harm and health system inefficiencies and costs. We seek to systematically review the evidence for overuse of different cardiovascular healthcare services in high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 2010 onwards. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts and full-text studies. We will include published English-language studies conducted in high-income countries that enrolled adults (mean/median age ≥18 years) and reported the incidence or prevalence of overuse of cardiovascular tests, medications or procedures; adjusted risk factors for overuse; or adjusted associations between overuse and outcomes (reported estimates of morbidity, mortality, costs or lengths of hospital stay). Acceptable methods of defining low-value care will include literature review and multidisciplinary iterative panel processes, healthcare services with reproducible evidence of a lack of benefit or harm, or clinical practice guideline or Choosing Wisely recommendations. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate study risk of bias in duplicate. We will calculate summary estimates of the incidence and prevalence of overuse of different cardiovascular healthcare services across studies unstratified and stratified by country; method of defining low-value care; the percentage of included females, different races, and those with low and high socioeconomic status or cardiovascular risk; and study risks of bias using random-effects models. We will also calculate pooled estimates of adjusted risk factors for overuse and adjusted associations between overuse and outcomes overall and stratified by country using random-effects models. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine certainty in estimates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this study as it deals with published data. Results will be presented at meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257490.

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

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).

A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic: Self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors.

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to mitigate the global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) have largely relied on broad compliance with public health recommendations yet navigating the high volume of evolving information can be challenging. We assessed self-reported public perceptions related to COVID-19 including, beliefs (e.g., severity, concerns, health), knowledge (e.g., transmission, information sources), and behaviors (e.g., physical distancing) to understand perspectives in Canada and to inform future public health initiatives. METHODS: We administered a national online survey aiming to obtain responses from 2000 adults in Canada. Respondent sampling was stratified by age, sex, and region. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and tested for regional differences using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. RESULTS: We collected 1,996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. One-fifth (20%) of respondents knew someone diagnosed with COVID-19, but few had tested positive themselves (0.6%). Negative impacts of pandemic conditions were evidenced in several areas, including concerns about healthcare (e.g. sufficient equipment, 52%), pandemic stress (45%), and worsening social (49%) and mental/emotional (39%) health. Most respondents (88%) felt they had good to excellent knowledge of virus transmission, and predominantly accessed (74%) and trusted (60%) Canadian news television, newspapers/magazines, or non-government news websites for COVID-19 information. We found high compliance with distancing measures (80% reported self-isolating or always physical distancing). We identified associations between region and self-reported beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: We found that information about COVID-19 is largely acquired through domestic news sources, which may explain high self-reported compliance with prevention measures. The results highlight the broader impact of a pandemic on the general public's overall health and wellbeing, outside of personal infection. The study findings should be used to inform public health communications during COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Investigating the Use of an Electronic Activity Monitor System as a Component of Physical Activity and Weight-Loss Interventions in Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic activity monitor systems (EAMSs) have been readily incorporated into physical activity (PA) and weight-loss interventions to facilitate self-monitoring PA behavior. A comprehensive review is required to better understand their utility as intervention modalities in nonclinical populations. METHODS: Medscape, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases were searched in February 2017, with a search update in April 2017. Citation screening, risk of bias assessment, and an intensity evaluation were conducted in duplicate by 2 investigators. RESULTS: The search returned 409 unique citations. Of which, 22 citations met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies found significant between-group differences: 3 in weight loss, 3 in PA levels, and 1 in both weight loss and PA levels. Effective interventions lasted 6 weeks to 12 months. Positive health outcomes were demonstrated when users interacted with multiple features of the EAMS and had access to other services, such as personal coaching or environmental reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: When control and intervention groups have access to the same components, such as counseling or group interaction, the addition of an EAMS for self-monitoring within the intervention group may not confer more favorable results. Risk of performance bias and low sample sizes should be addressed in future trials to generate more reliable findings.