Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.

In contrast to traditional randomized controlled trials, embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted within healthcare settings with real-world patient populations. ePCTs are intentionally designed to align with health system priorities leveraging existing healthcare system infrastructure and resources to ease intervention implementation and increase the likelihood that effective interventions translate into routine practice following the trial. The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), supports the conduct of large-scale ePCT Demonstration Projects that address major public health issues within healthcare systems. The Collaboratory has a unique opportunity to draw on the Demonstration Project experiences to generate lessons learned related to ePCTs and the dissemination and implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs. In this article, we use case studies from six completed Demonstration Projects to summarize the Collaboratory's experience with post-trial interpretation of results, and implications for sustainment (or de-implementation) of tested interventions. We highlight three key lessons learned. First, ineffective interventions (i.e., ePCT is null for the primary outcome) may be sustained if they have other measured benefits (e.g., secondary outcome or subgroup) or even perceived benefits (e.g., staff like the intervention). Second, effective interventions-even those solicited by the health system and/or designed with significant health system partner buy-in-may not be sustained if they require significant resources. Third, alignment with policy incentives is essential for achieving sustainment and scale-up of effective interventions. Our experiences point to several recommendations to aid in considering post-trial sustainment or de-implementation of interventions tested in ePCTs: (1) include secondary outcome measures that are salient to health system partners; (2) collect all appropriate data to allow for post hoc analysis of subgroups; (3) collect experience data from clinicians and staff; (4) engage policy-makers before starting the trial.

Targets for De-implementation of Unnecessary Testing Before Low-Risk Surgery: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite multispecialty recommendations to avoid routine preoperative testing before low-risk surgery, the practice remains common and de-implementation has proven difficult. The goal of this study as to elicit determinants of unnecessary testing before low-risk surgery to inform de-implementation efforts. METHODS: We conducted focused ethnography at a large academic institution, including semi-structured interviews and direct observations at two preoperative evaluation clinics and one outpatient surgery center. Themes were identified through narrative thematic analysis and mapped to a comprehensive and integrated checklist of determinants of practice, the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework (TICD). RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated (surgeons, anesthesiologists, primary care physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and medical assistants). Three themes were identified: (1) Shared Values (TICD Social, Political, and Legal Factors), (2) Gaps in Knowledge (TICD Individual Health Professional Factors, Guideline Factors), and (3) Communication Breakdown (TICD Professional Interactions, Incentives and Resources, Capacity for Organizational Change). Shared Values describe core tenets expressed by all groups of clinicians, namely prioritizing patient safety and utilizing evidence-based medicine. Clinicians had Gaps in Knowledge related to existing data and preoperative testing recommendations. Communication Breakdowns within interdisciplinary teams resulted in unnecessary testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other providers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have knowledge gaps related to preoperative testing recommendations and may be amenable to de-implementation efforts and educational interventions. Consensus guidelines may streamline interdisciplinary communication by clarifying interdisciplinary needs and reducing testing ordered to meet perceived expectations of other clinicians.

Understanding the uptake and adaption of targeted implementation interventions for reducing bronchiolitis investigations and therapies.

AIM: To understand and evaluate the uptake and local adaptations of proven targeted implementation interventions that have effectively reduced unnecessary investigations and therapies in infants with bronchiolitis within emergency departments. METHODS: A multi-centred, mixed-methods quality improvement study in four Australian hospitals that provide paediatric emergency and inpatient care from May to December 2021. All hospitals were provided with the same implementation intervention package and training. Real-time tracking logs of adaptions were completed followed by semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subsequently coded using FRAME-IS to further describe the adaptions made. RESULTS: Tracking logs were summarised and data from 12 interviews were compared from participating sites. The intervention resulted in 116 education sessions and a total of 23 adaptations made to educational materials, both content and contextual. Shortening education presentations, addition of bronchiolitis definitions, formatting of materials and novel interventions were the most common modifications. Audit and feedback were completed across all sites with varying utilisation. Targeted teaching was noted to dictate adaptions prior to and during implementation. CONCLUSION: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of clinical 'real-world' adaptations to proven targeted implementation interventions allows invaluable insight for future de-implementation initiatives and national roll-out of implementation packages in the ED setting.

PRO: Implementation Science Has Value in Anesthesiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Implementation science is a nascent field that aims to study the factors that influence the effectiveness of a given clinical intervention, such as the characteristics of the individuals involved, the internal and external settings, the process of implementation, and other factors. Overall, implementation science aims to increase the extent to which an intervention is practiced, and the quality of its delivery to a patient. Although still in its infancy, the applications of implementation science in anesthesiology and cardiothoracic surgery abound. Whether used to adopt novel innovations, avoid the use of obsolete practices, or redeploy existing interventions to improve quality, implementation science holds promise in optimizing how we bring the latest in clinical science to produce tangible benefits to patients and create sustainable change.

Low-value home-based nursing care: A national survey study.

AIMS: To explore potential areas of low-value home-based nursing care practices, their prevalence and related influencing factors of nurses and nursing assistants working in home-based nursing care. DESIGN: A quantitative, cross-sectional design. METHODS: An online survey with questions containing scaled frequencies on five-point Likert scales and open questions on possible related influencing factors of low-value nursing care. The data collection took place from February to April 2022. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to summarize and analyse the results. RESULTS: A nationwide sample of 776 certified nursing assistants, registered nurses and nurse practitioners responded to the survey. The top five most delivered low-value care practices reported were: (1) 'washing the client with water and soap by default', (2) 'application of zinc cream, powders or pastes when treating intertrigo', (3) 'washing the client from head to toe daily', (4) 're-use of a urinary catheter bag after removal/disconnection' and (5) 'bladder irrigation to prevent clogging of urinary tract catheter'. The top five related influencing factors reported were: (1) 'a (general) practitioner advices/prescribes it', (2) 'written in the client's care plan', (3) 'client asks for it', (4) 'wanting to offer the client something' and (5) 'it is always done like this in the team'. Higher educational levels and an age above 40 years were associated with a lower provision of low-value care. CONCLUSION: According to registered nurses and certified nursing assistants, a number of low-value nursing practices occurred frequently in home-based nursing care and they experienced multiple factors that influence the provision of low-value care such as (lack of) clinical autonomy and handling clients' requests, preferences and demands. The results can be used to serve as a starting point for a multifaceted de-implementation strategy. REPORTING METHOD: STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nursing care is increasingly shifting towards the home environment. Not all nursing care that is provided is effective or efficient and this type of care can therefore be considered of low-value. Reducing low-value care and increasing appropriate care will free up time, improve quality of care, work satisfaction, patient safety and contribute to a more sustainable healthcare system.

Testing Theory-Based Messages to Encourage Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer to Consider Biennial Mammography Screening.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend routine annual mammography screening for women aged 40-49 at average risk. Little research has been done to develop theory-based communication interventions to facilitate informed decision-making about reducing potentially low-value mammography screening. PURPOSE: Evaluate the effects of theory-based persuasive messages on women's willingness to consider delaying screening mammography until age 50 or have mammograms biennially. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled communication experiment online with a population-based sample of U.S. women aged 40-49 (N = 383) who screened to be at average risk for breast cancer. Women were randomly assigned to the following messaging summaries: annual mammography risks in 40s (Arm 1, n = 124), mammography risks plus family history-based genetic risk (Arm 2, n = 120), and mammography risks, genetic risk, and behavioral alternatives (Arm 3, n = 139). Willingness to delay screening or reduce screening frequency was assessed post-experiment by a set of 5-point Likert scale items. RESULTS: Women in Arm 3 reported significantly greater willingness to delay screening mammography until age 50 (mean = 0.23, SD = 1.26) compared with those in Arm 1 (mean = -0.17, SD = 1.20; p = .04). There were no significant arm differences in willingness to reduce screening frequency. Exposure to the communication messages significantly shifted women's breast cancer-related risk perceptions without increasing unwarranted cancer worry across all three arms. CONCLUSIONS: Providing women with screening information and options may help initiate challenging discussions with providers about potentially low-value screening.

The US Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend routine annual mammography screening for women aged 40­49 at average risk. This study aimed to assess the impact of theory-based persuasive messages on women's willingness to delay mammography screening until age 50 or opt for biennial screenings. In a randomized online experiment, 383 U.S. women aged 40­49 at average risk for breast cancer were assigned to three different message groups. The results showed that women exposed to messaging that included mammography risks, family history-based genetic risk, and behavioral alternatives were significantly more willing to delay screening until age 50. However, there were no significant differences in willingness to reduce screening frequency. The tested communication messages effectively shifted women's breast cancer-related risk perceptions without causing unnecessary worry. Providing women with screening information and options may help initiate challenging discussions with providers about potentially low-value screening.

Sticking with Programs That Do Not Work: The Role of Escalation of Commitment in Schools.

Schools are the most common site to implement evidence-based prevention programs and practices (EBPs) to improve behavioral and mental health outcomes among children and adolescents. Research has highlighted the critical role of school administrators in the adoption, implementation, and evaluation of such EBPs, focusing on the factors they should consider during the adoption decision and the behaviors needed for successful implementation. However, scholars have only recently begun to focus on the de-adoption or de-implementation of low-value programs and practices to make room for evidence-based alternatives. This study introduces escalation of commitment as a theoretical framework for understanding why school administrators may stick with ineffective programs and practices. Escalation of commitment is a robust decision-making bias in which people feel compelled to continue with a course of action even when performance indicators suggest it is not going well. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 building- and district-level school administrators in the Midwestern United States. Results suggested that escalation of commitment occurs when administrators attribute the underlying causes of poor program performance not to the program itself but instead to issues related to implementation, leadership, or the limitations of the performance indicators themselves. We also identified a variety of psychological, organizational, and external determinants that accentuate administrators' continuance of ineffective prevention programs. Based on our findings, we highlight several contributions to theory and practice.

Selective de-implementation of routine in vivo dosimetry.

As cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become the localization method for a majority of cases, the indications for diode-based confirmation of accurate patient set-up and treatment are now limited and must be balanced between proper resource allocation and optimizing efficiency without compromising safety. We undertook a de-implementation quality improvement project to discontinue routine diode use in non-intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cases in favor of tailored selection of scenarios where diodes may be useful. After analysis of safety reports from the last 5 years, literature review, and stakeholder discussions, our safety and quality (SAQ) committee introduced a recommendation to limit diode use to specific scenarios in which in vivo verification may add value to standard quality assurance (QA) processes. To assess changes in patterns of use, we reviewed diode use by clinical indication 4 months prior and after the implementation of the revised policy, which includes use of diodes for: 3D conformal photon fields set up without CBCT; total body irradiation (TBI); electron beams; cardiac devices within 10 cm of the treatment field; and unique scenarios on a case-by-case basis. We identified 4459 prescriptions and 1038 unique instances of diode use across five clinical sites from 5/2021 to 1/2022. After implementation of the revised policy, we observed an overall decrease in diode use from 32% to 13.2%, with a precipitous drop in 3D cases utilizing CBCT (from 23.2% to 4%), while maintaining diode utilization in the 5 selected scenarios including 100% of TBI and electron cases. By identifying specific indications for diode use and creating a user-friendly platform for case selection, we have successfully de-implemented routine diode use in favor of a selective process that identifies cases where the diode is important for patient safety. In doing so, we have streamlined patient care and decreased cost without compromising patient safety.

[Why is it increasingly difficult to "do the right thing" and to "stop doing the wrong thing"? Strategies for reversing low-value practices]. / ¿Por qué resulta cada vez más complicado "hacer lo que hay que hacer" y "dejar de hacer lo que no hay que hacer"? Estrategias para revertir las prácticas de bajo valor.

This manuscript describes the factors that have led to the spread of low-value practices (LVP) and the main initiatives to reverse them. The paper highlights the strategies that have proven to be most useful over the years, from the alignment of clinical practice with "do not do" recommendations, to quaternary prevention and the risks associated with interventionism. Reversing LVP requires a planned process with a multifactorial approach engaging the different actors involved. It considers the barriers to de-implementation of low-value interventions and incorporates tools that facilitate adherence to "do not do" recommendations. Family doctor has an especially relevant role in LVP prevention, detection and de-implementation, due to their coordinating and integrating nature in the patients' healthcare, and because most of the citizens' healthcare demands are managed and resolved at the first level of care.

Physician Perspectives on Reducing Curative Cancer Treatment Intensity for Populations Underrepresented in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Historically, clinical trials involved adding novel agents to standard of care to improve survival. There has been a shift to an individualized approach with testing less intense treatment, particularly in breast cancer where risk of recurrence is low. Little is known about physician perspectives on delivering less intense treatment for patients who are not well represented in clinical trials. METHODS: Open-ended, individual qualitative interviews with medical oncologists explored their perspectives on trials that test less intense treatment for patients with cancer, with a focus on breast cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Four independent coders utilized a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 39 participating physicians, 61.5% felt comfortable extrapolating, 30.8% were hesitant, and 7.7% would not feel comfortable extrapolating trial outcomes to underrepresented populations. Facilitators of comfort included the sentiment that "biology is biology" (such that the cancer characteristics were what mattered), the strength of the evidence, inclusion of subset analysis on underrepresented populations, and prior experience making decisions with limited data. Barriers to extrapolation included potential harm over the patient's lifetime, concerns about groups that had minimal participants, application to younger patients, and extending findings to diverse populations. Universally, broader inclusion in trials testing lowering chemotherapy was desired. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (92%) of physicians reported that they would de-implement treatment for patients poorly represented in clinical trials testing less treatment, while expressing concerns about applicability to specific subpopulations. Further work is needed to increase clinical trial representation of diverse populations to safely and effectively optimize treatment for patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03248258.

Facilitators and barriers to reducing chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a qualitative analysis of interviews with patients and patient advocates.

BACKGROUND: As the combination of systemic and targeted chemotherapies is associated with severe adverse side effects and long-term health complications, there is interest in reducing treatment intensity for patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Clinical trials are needed to determine the feasibility of reducing treatment intensity while maintaining 3-year recurrence-free survival of greater than 92%. To recruit participants for these trials, it is important to understand patient perspectives on reducing chemotherapy. METHODS: We collected qualitative interview data from twenty-four patients with Stage II-III breast cancer and sixteen patient advocates. Interviews explored potential barriers and facilitators to participation in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy. As the COVID-19 pandemic struck during data collection, seventeen participants were asked about the potential impact of COVID-19 on their interest in these trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and researchers used qualitative content analysis to code for dominant themes. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (42.5%) expressed interest in participating in a trial of reduced chemotherapy. Barriers to reducing chemotherapy included (1) fear of recurrence and inefficacy, (2) preference for aggressive treatment, (3) disinterest in clinical trials, (4) lack of information about expected outcomes, (5) fear of regret, and (6) having young children. Facilitators included (1) avoiding physical toxicity, (2) understanding the scientific rationale of reducing chemotherapy, (3) confidence in providers, (4) consistent monitoring and the option to increase dosage, (5) fewer financial and logistical challenges, and (6) contributing to scientific knowledge. Of those asked, nearly all participants said they would be more motivated to reduce treatment intensity in the context of COVID-19, primarily to avoid exposure to the virus while receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with EBC, there is significant interest in alleviating treatment-related toxicity by reducing chemotherapeutic intensity. Patients will be more apt to participate in trials testing reduced amounts of chemotherapy if these are framed in terms of customizing treatment to the individual patient and added benefit-reduced toxicities, higher quality of life during treatment and lower risk of long-term complications-rather than in terms of taking treatments away or doing less than the standard of care. Doctor-patient rapport and provider support will be crucial in this process.

Using Tailored Messages to Target Overuse of Low-Value Breast Cancer Care in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: National recommendations allow for the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and post-lumpectomy radiotherapy in women ≥ 70 y/o with early-stage, hormone-receptor positive invasive breast cancer, but these therapies remain common. Previous work demonstrates an individual's maximizing-minimizing trait-an inherent preference for more or less medical care-may influence the preference for low-value care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited an equal number of women ≥ 70 yrs who were maximizers, minimizers, or neutral based on a validated measure between September 2020 and November 2020. Participants were presented a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis before randomization to one of three follow-up messages: maximizer-tailored, minimizer-tailored, or neutral. Tailored messaging aimed to redirect maximizers and minimizers toward declining SLNB and radiotherapy. The main outcome measure was predicted probability of choosing SLNB or radiotherapy. RESULTS: The final analytical sample (n = 1600) was 515 maximizers (32%), 535 neutral (33%) and 550 (34%) minimizers. Higher maximizing tendency positively correlated with electing both SLNB and radiotherapy on logistic regression (P < 0.01). Any tailoring (maximizer- or minimizer-tailored) reduced preference for SLNB in maximizing and neutral women but had no effect in minimizing women. Tailoring had no impact on radiotherapy decision, except for an increased probability of minimizers electing radiotherapy when presented with maximizer-tailored messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Maximizing-minimizing tendencies are associated with treatment preferences among women facing a hypothetical breast cancer diagnosis. Targeted messaging may facilitate avoidance of low-value breast cancer care, particularly for SLNB.

Perceived Barriers to the De-implementation of Routine Preoperative History & Physicals Preceding Low-Risk Ambulatory Procedures: A Qualitative Study of Surgeon Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing surgery at an Ambulatory Surgical Center, recent changes to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy allow for the omission of a 30-day preoperative History and Physical (H&P). Preoperative H&Ps for low-risk surgery may contribute to health care waste and lead to unnecessary preoperative testing and treatment cascades. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with surgeons who frequently perform low-risk surgeries. We aimed to evaluate surgeon perspectives on the continued use of the 30-day preoperative H&P and specifically the potential risks and benefits associated with the elimination of a preoperative H&P requirement from institutional practice. We used an interpretive description approach to generate a thematic description. RESULTS: Most participants felt that the 30-day preoperative H&P was low value and frequently described it as "unnecessary," "redundant," or "just checking a box." Many viewed the 30-day requirement as arbitrary and felt that new H&P findings were rare and unlikely to influence surgical care. The participants who favored the preoperative H&P felt it was a safeguard to ensure "nothing was missed" and were less likely to be burdened by the requirement than participants who felt it was low value. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons performing low-risk procedures question the utility and value of conducting a preoperative H&P within 30 days of surgery. De-implementation of the 30-day preoperative H&P for low-risk patients may increase convenience for patients and providers. Furthermore, it may improve value in surgery by increasing access to services for patients with greater need for preoperative assessment.

Can targeted interventions change the factors influencing variation in management of infants with bronchiolitis? A survey of Australian and New Zealand clinicians: A paediatric research in emergency departments international collaborative (PREDICT) study.

AIM: This study aimed to determine whether targeted interventions, proven to be effective at improving evidence-based bronchiolitis management, changed factors previously found to influence variation in bronchiolitis management. METHODS: This survey assessed change in factors influencing clinicians' (nurses and doctors) bronchiolitis management at baseline and post-intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial of targeted, theory-informed interventions aiming to de-implement non-evidence-based bronchiolitis management (no use of chest X-ray, salbutamol, antibiotics, glucocorticoids and adrenaline). Survey questions addressed previously identified factors influencing bronchiolitis management from six Theoretical Domains Framework domains (knowledge; skills; beliefs about consequences; social/professional role and identity; environmental context and resources; social influences). Data analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: A total of 1958 surveys (baseline = 996; post-intervention = 962) were completed by clinicians from the emergency department and paediatric inpatient units from 26 hospitals (intervention = 13; control = 13). Targeted bronchiolitis interventions significantly increased knowledge of the Australasian Bronchiolitis Guideline (intervention clinicians = 74%, control = 39%, difference = 34.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 25.6-43.8%), improved skills in diagnosing (intervention doctors = 89%, control = 76%, difference = 12.6%, 95% CI = 6.2-19%) and managing bronchiolitis (intervention doctors = 87%, control = 76%, difference = 9.9%, 95% CI = 3.7-16.1%), positively influenced both beliefs about consequences regarding salbutamol use (intervention clinicians = 49%, control = 29%, difference = 20.3%, 95% CI = 13.2-27.4%) and nurses questioning non-evidence-based bronchiolitis management (chest X-ray: intervention = 71%, control = 51%, difference = 20.8%, 95% CI = 11.4-30.2%; glucocorticoids: intervention = 64%, control = 40%, difference = 21.9%, 95% CI = 10.4-33.5%) (social/professional role and identity). A 14% improvement in evidence-based bronchiolitis management favouring intervention hospitals was demonstrated in the cluster randomised controlled trial. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions positively changed factors influencing bronchiolitis management resulting in improved evidence-based bronchiolitis care. This study has important implications for improving bronchiolitis management and future development of interventions to de-implement low-value care.

Understanding low-value care and associated de-implementation processes: a qualitative study of Choosing Wisely Interventions across Canadian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Choosing 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. METHODS: Semi-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. FINDINGS: Seventeen 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Reducing low-value radiological services in Norway -a qualitative multi-professional study on measures and facilitators for change.

BACKGROUND: Overuse, underuse, and significant variation in the utilisation of radiological services are well documented in the literature. Several radiological examinations are identified as low-value examinations as they do not lead to a change in diagnosis or course of treatment. Even so, such examinations are frequently performed. Many measures for reducing low-value imaging have been carried out with variable outcomes. While there is little evidence as to why some measures work and others do not, adjusting to the context seems important for success. The objective of this study was to investigate which measures stakeholders consider appropriate for reducing the use of low-value imaging and what it takes to make them work. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among radiographers, radiologists, radiological department managers, hospital clinicians, general practitioners, and health government/authorities' representatives. The interview guide covered two broad areas: Experience with low-value services, and possible future measures deemed appropriate for reducing low-value services. Data were analysed in line with a qualitative framework analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included information from 27 participants. All participants acknowledged that low-value imaging was a problem, but few had very specific suggestions on reducing this in practice. Suggested measures were to stop referrals from being sent, provide support in assessing referrals, or change the healthcare system. Identified facilitators were categorised as management and resources, evidence, and experienced value. In general, appropriate measures should be practical, well-founded, and valuable. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into various stakeholders' perceptions of suitable interventions to reduce low-value imaging. While many measures for reducing low-value imaging are available, contextual sensitivity is crucial to make them work.

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 .

Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians' imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation requires understanding and targeting multilevel determinants of low-value care. The objective of this study was to identify multilevel determinants of imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) and asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH), two common urologic conditions that have contributed substantially to the annual spending on unnecessary imaging in the US. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach involving survey and interview data. Using a survey, we asked 33 clinicians (55% response-rate) to indicate their imaging approach to 8 clinical vignettes designed to elicit responses that would demonstrate guideline-concordant/discordant imaging practices for patients with PCa or AMH. A subset of survey respondents (N = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews guided by a combination of two frameworks that offered a comprehensive understanding of multilevel determinants. We analyzed the interviews using a directed content analysis approach and identified subthemes to better understand the differences and similarities in the imaging determinants across two clinical conditions. RESULTS: Survey results showed that the majority of clinicians chose guideline-concordant imaging behaviors for PCa; guideline-concordant imaging intentions were more varied for AMH. Interview results informed what influenced imaging decisions and provided additional context to the varying intentions for AMH. Five subthemes touching on multiple levels were identified from the interviews: National Guidelines, Supporting Evidence and Information Exchange, Organization of the Imaging Pathways, Patients' Clinical and Other Risk Factors, and Clinicians' Beliefs and Experiences Regarding Imaging. Imaging decisions for both PCa and AMH were often driven by national guidelines from major professional societies. However, when clinicians felt guidelines were inadequate, they reported that their decision-making was influenced by their knowledge of recent scientific evidence, past clinical experiences, and the anticipated benefits of imaging (or not imaging) to both the patient and the clinician. In particular, clinicians referred to patients' anxiety and uncertainty or patients' clinical factors. For AMH patients, clinicians additionally expressed concerns regarding legal liability risk. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comprehensive multilevel determinants of imaging to inform development of de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value imaging, which we found useful for identifying determinants of de-implementation. De-implementation interventions should be tailored to address the contextual determinants that are specific to each clinical condition.

Planning and Reporting Effective Web-Based RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Panels: Literature Review and Preliminary Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels on the internet, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a web-based RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research; yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement web-based expert panels. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how the web-based RAM process is currently used and reported in health research and (2) to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a web-based RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article were abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the web-based expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. RESULTS: Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that the studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (eg, satisfaction with the process). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting web-based RAM panels will continue to be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable, high-quality findings. The need for reporting standards is especially critical given that more people may prefer to participate in web-based rather than in-person panels due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The de-implementation of low-value care (LVC) is important to improving patient and population health, minimizing patient harm and reducing resource waste. However, there is limited knowledge about how the de-implementation of LVC is governed and what challenges might be involved. In this study, we aimed to (1) identify key stakeholders' activities in relation to de-implementing LVC in Sweden at the national governance level and (2) identify challenges involved in the national governance of the de-implementation of LVC. METHODS: We used a purposeful sampling strategy to identify stakeholders in Sweden having a potential role in governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level. Twelve informants from nine stakeholder agencies/organizations were recruited using snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four potential activities for governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level were identified: recommendations, health technology assessment, control over pharmaceutical products and a national system for knowledge management. Challenges involved included various vested interests that result in the maintenance of LVC and a low overall priority of working with the de-implementation of LVC compared with the implementation of new evidence. Ambiguous evidence made it difficult to clearly determine whether a practice was LVC. Unclear roles, where none of the stakeholders perceived that they had a formal mandate to govern the de-implementation of LVC, further contributed to the challenges involved in governing that de-implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Various activities were performed to govern the de-implementation of LVC at a national level in Sweden; however, these were limited and had a lower priority relative to the implementation of new methods. Challenges involved relate to unfavourable change incentives, ambiguous evidence, and unclear roles to govern the de-implementation of LVC. Addressing these challenges could make the national-level governance of de-implementation more systematic and thereby help create favourable conditions for reducing LVC in healthcare.