Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review

Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Reducing low-value care (LVC) is crucial to improve the quality of patient care while increasing the efficient use of scarce healthcare resources. Recently, strategies to de-implement LVC have been mapped against the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of strategies. However, such strategies' effectiveness across different healthcare practices has not been addressed. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to investigate the effectiveness of de-implementation initiatives and specific ERIC strategy clusters.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) from 1 January 2010 to 17 April 2023 and used additional search strategies to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria, assessed the SR quality and extracted pre-specified data. We created harvest plots to display the results.

RESULTS

Of 46 included SRs, 27 focused on drug treatments, such as antibiotics or opioids, twelve on laboratory tests or diagnostic imaging and seven on other healthcare practices. In categorising de-implementation strategies, SR authors applied different techniques: creating self-developed strategies (n = 12), focussing on specific de-implementation strategies (n = 14) and using published taxonomies (n = 12). Overall, 15 SRs provided evidence for the effectiveness of de-implementation interventions to reduce antibiotic and opioid utilisation. Reduced utilisation, albeit inconsistently significant, was documented in the use of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, as well as in laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging. Strategies within the adapt and tailor to context, develop stakeholder interrelationships, and change infrastructure and workflow ERIC clusters led to a consistent reduction in LVC practices.

CONCLUSION

De-implementation initiatives were effective in reducing medication usage, and inconsistent significant reductions were observed for LVC laboratory tests and imaging. Notably, de-implementation clusters such as change infrastructure and workflow and develop stakeholder interrelationships emerged as the most encouraging avenues. Additionally, we provided suggestions to enhance SR quality, emphasising adherence to guidelines for synthesising complex interventions, prioritising appropriateness of care outcomes, documenting the development process of de-implementation initiatives and ensuring consistent reporting of applied de-implementation strategies.

REGISTRATION

OSF Open Science Framework 5ruzw.

Clinician Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children's Hospital: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.

Low-value health care, de-implementation, and implications for nursing research: A discussion paper

Globally, the nursing profession constitutes the largest proportion of the health workforce; however, it is challenged by widespread workforce shortages relative to need. Strategies to promote recruitment of the nursing workforce are well-established, with a lesser focus on strategies to alleviate the burden on the existing workforce. This burden may be exacerbated by the impact of low-value health care, characterised as health care that provides little or no benefit for patients, or has the potential to cause harm. Low-value health care is a global problem, a major contributor to the waste of healthcare resources, and a key focus of health system reform. Evidence of variation in low-value health care has been identified across countries and system levels. Research on low-value health care has largely focused on the medical profession, with a paucity of research examining either low-value health care or the de-implementation of low-value health care from a nursing perspective. The objective of this paper is to provide a scholarly discussion of the literature around low-value health care and de-implementation, with the purpose of identifying implications for nursing research. With increasing pressures on the global nursing workforce, research identifying low-value health care and developing approaches to de-implement this care, is crucial.

De-implementation strategy to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for ambulatory HIV-infected patients with upper respiratory tract infections in Mozambique: a study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are globally overprescribed for the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), especially in persons living with HIV. However, most URTIs are caused by viruses, and antibiotics are not indicated. De-implementation is perceived as an important area of research that can lead to reductions in unnecessary, wasteful, or harmful practices, such as excessive or inappropriate antibiotic use for URTI, through the employment of evidence-based interventions to reduce these practices. Research into strategies that lead to successful de-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions within the primary health care setting is limited in Mozambique. In this study, we propose a protocol designed to evaluate the use of a clinical decision support algorithm (CDSA) for promoting the de-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for URTI among ambulatory HIV-infected adult patients in primary healthcare settings.

METHODS

This study is a multicenter, two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial, involving six primary health care facilities in Maputo and Matola municipalities in Mozambique, guided by an innovative implementation science framework, the Dynamic Adaption Process. In total, 380 HIV-infected patients with URTI symptoms will be enrolled, with 190 patients assigned to both the intervention and control arms. For intervention sites, the CDSAs will be posted on either the exam room wall or on the clinician´s exam room desk for ease of reference during clinical visits. Our sample size is powered to detect a reduction in antibiotic use by 15%. We will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation outcomes and examine the effect of multi-level (sites and patients) factors in promoting the de-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. The effectiveness and implementation of our antibiotic de-implementation strategy are the primary outcomes, whereas the clinical endpoints are the secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This research will provide evidence on the effectiveness of the use of the CDSA in promoting the de-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in treating acute URTI, among ambulatory HIV-infected patients. Findings will bring evidence for the need to scale up strategies for the de-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic prescription practices in additional healthcare sites within the country.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN88272350. Registered 16 May 2024, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN88272350.

Reconceptualizing the approach to supporting students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in school settings

The long-term academic outcomes for many students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are strikingly poor. It has been decades since students with ADHD were specifically recognized as eligible for special education through the Other Health Impaired category under the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, and similarly, eligible for academic accommodations through Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. It is time to acknowledge that these school-policies have been insufficient for supporting the academic, social, and behavioral outcomes for students with ADHD. Numerous reasons for the unsuccessful outcomes include a lack of evidence-based interventions embedded into school approaches, minimizing the importance of the general education setting for promoting effective behavioral supports, and an over-reliance on assessment and classification at the expense of intervention. Contemporary behavioral support approaches in schools are situated in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS); within this article we argue that forward-looking school policies should situate ADHD screening, intervention, and maintenance of interventions within MTSS in general education settings and reserve special education eligibility solely for students who require more intensive intervention. An initial model of intervention is presented for addressing ADHD within schools in a manner that should provide stronger interventions, more quickly, and therefore more effectively.

Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey

BACKGROUND

Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries.

METHODS

Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results.

RESULTS

Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

Provision of a Home-Based Video-Assisted Therapy Program Is Noninferior to In-Person Hand Therapy After Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In-person hand therapy is commonly prescribed for rehabilitation after thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty but may be burdensome to patients because of the need to travel to appointments. Asynchronous, video-assisted home therapy is a method of care in which videos containing instructions and exercises are provided to the patient, without the need for in-person or telemedicine visits. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of providing video-only therapy (VOT) as compared with scheduled in-person therapy (IPT) after thumb CMC arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a single-site, prospective, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing primary thumb CMC arthroplasty without an implant. The study included 50 women and 8 men, with a mean age of 61 years (range, 41 to 83 years). Of these, 96.6% were White, 3.4% were Black, and 13.8% were of Hispanic ethnicity. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) score. Subjects in the VOT group were provided with 3 videos of home exercises to perform. Subjects in the control group received standardized IPT with a hand therapist. Improvements in the PROMIS UE score from preoperatively to 12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight subjects (29 control, 29 experimental) were included in the analysis at the 12-week time point, and 54 (27 control, 27 experimental) were included in the analysis at the 1-year time point. VOT was noninferior to IPT for the PROMIS UE score at 12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively, with a difference of mean improvement (VOT - IPT) of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to 6.6) and 2.2 (95% CI, -3.0 to 7.3), respectively, both of which were below the minimal clinically important difference (4.1). Patients in the VOT group potentially saved on average 201.3 miles in travel.

CONCLUSIONS

VOT was noninferior to IPT for upper extremity function after thumb CMC arthroplasty. Time saved in commutes was considerable for those who did not attend IPT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Methodological progress note: De-implementation of low-value care

De-implementation is the process of reducing or stopping the use of ineffective, harmful, or low-value healthcare services that provide little or no benefit to patients. This article reviews relevant frameworks for planning and evaluating de-implementation initiatives, describes unique barriers, and provides effective strategies for de-implementation in Hospital Medicine.

Combination Therapy Use and Associated Events in Clinical Practice Following Dissemination of Trial Findings: A De-Implementation Study Using Interrupted Time Series Analysis

PURPOSE

It takes 17 years, on average, for trial results to be implemented into practice. Using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), this study assessed the potential impact on clinical practice of the dissemination of findings from a randomized, controlled trial reporting harm with the use of combination therapy. Communication between research and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM)  provided the impetus for communication from the PBM about the findings of the trial in accordance with policy.

METHODS

In this de-implementation study, interrupted time series analysis was used for assessing prescribing patterns and adverse clinical events before and after the dissemination of the trial findings. The de-implementation strategy was multicomponent and multilevel. Strategies were aligned with categories outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change: train and educate stakeholders, use evaluative and iterative strategies, develop stakeholder inter-relationships, change infrastructure, provide interactive assistance, and engage consumers. VA patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stages 1 to 3, and a moderate or severe albuminuria who received care between July 2008 and November 2017 were included. Patients were subgrouped according to treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + angiotensin receptor blocker. The primary end point was the prevalence of combination therapy use. Secondary end points were the incidences of acute kidney injury and hyperkalemia.

FINDINGS

This study followed 712,245 patients, 9297 of whom used combination therapy. Data were available from 428,535 and 283,710 patients pre- and post-intervention, respectively; among these, 8324 and 973 patients used combination therapy, the median ages were 66 and 68 years, and 96.92% and 98.82% were men. One month following communication from the PBM, the reductions in combination therapy users, acute kidney injury events, and hyperkalemia were 331.94 (95% CI, 500.27-163.32), 36.58% (95% CI, 31.90%-41.95%), and 25.49% (95% CI, 14.17%-36.07%) per 100,000 patients per month, respectively (all, P < 0.001), whereas before the communication, these changes were +14.84 (95% CI, 10.27-19.42), -3.46% (95% CI, 3.18-3.74), and -3.27% (95% CI, 2.66%-3.87%) (all, P < 0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

The apparent speed and impact of the implementation of changes resulting from the dissemination of trial findings into VA clinical practice are encouraging. The speed of implementation was much faster than average for health care providers in the United States. Established communications between research and clinical practice, as well as established policy and communications between PBM and clinical practice, may be a model for other health care organizations.

Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%).

CONCLUSION

De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32 .