| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hasson, Henna, et al.
(författare)
-
Empirical and conceptual investigation of de-implementation of low-value care from professional and health care system perspectives : a study protocol
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BIOMED CENTRAL LTD. - 1748-5908. ; 13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lacks evidence of their effectiveness This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary, or even harmful care Thus, in addition to implementing evidence based practices, there is also a need to abandon interventions that are not based on best evidence, i e, low value care However, research on de implementation is limited, and there is a lack of knowledge about how effective de implementation processes should be earned out The aim of this project is to explore the phenomenon of the de implementation of low value health care practices from the perspective of professionals and the health care system. Methods: Theories of habits and developmental learning in combination with theories of organizational alignment will be used The project's work will be conducted in five steps Step 1 is a scoping review of the literature, and Step 2 has an explorative design involving interviews with health care stakeholders Step 3 has a prospective design in which workplaces and professionals are shadowed during an ongoing de implementation In Step 4, a conceptual framework for de implementation will be developed based on the previous steps In Step 5, strategies for de implementation are identified using a co design approach. Discussion: This project contributes new knowledge to implementation science consisting of empirical data, a conceptual framework, and strategy suggestions on de implementation of low value care The professionals' perspectives will be highlighted, including insights into how they make decisions, handle de implementation in daily practice, and what consequences it has on their work Furthermore, the health care system perspective will be considered and new knowledge on how de implementation can be understood across health care system levels will be obtained The theories of habits and developmental learning can also offer insights into how context triggers and reinforces certain behaviors and how factors at the individual and the organizational levels interact The project employs a solution oriented perspective by developing a framework for de implementation of low value practices and suggesting practical strategies to improve de implementation processes at all levels of the health care system The framework and the strategies can thereafter be evaluated for their validity and impact in future studies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hasson, H., et al.
(författare)
-
To do or not to do - Balancing governance and professional autonomy to abandon low-value practices : A study protocol
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1748-5908. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Many interventions used in health care lack evidence of effectiveness and may be unnecessary or even cause harm, and should therefore be de-implemented. Lists of such ineffective, low-value practices are common, but these lists have little chance of leading to improvements without sufficient knowledge regarding how de-implementation can be governed and carried out. However, decisions regarding de-implementation are not only a matter of scientific evidence; the puzzle is far more complex with political, economic, and relational interests play a role. This project aims at exploring the governance of de-implementation of low-value practices from the perspectives of national and regional governments and senior management at provider organizations. Methods: Theories of complexity science and organizational alignment are used, and interviews are conducted with stakeholders involved in the governance of low-value practice de-implementation, including national and regional governments (focusing on two contrasting regions in Sweden) and senior management at provider organizations. In addition, an ongoing process for governing de-implementation in accordance with current recommendations is followed over an 18-month period to explore how governance is conducted in practice. A framework for the governance of de-implementation and policy suggestions will be developed to guide de-implementation governance. Discussion: This study contributes to knowledge about the governance of de-implementation of low-value care practices. The study provides rich empirical data from multiple system levels regarding how de-implementation of low-value practices is currently governed. The study also makes a theoretical contribution by applying the theories of complexity and organizational alignment, which may provide generalizable knowledge about the interplay between stakeholders across system levels and how and why certain factors influence the governance of de-implementation. The project employs a solution-oriented perspective by developing a framework for de-implementation of low-value practices and suggesting practical strategies to improve the governance of de-implementation. The framework and strategies can thereafter be evaluated for validity and impact in future studies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ingvarsson, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
Strategies for de-implementation of low-value care—a scoping review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1748-5908. ; 17:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Similar 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ingvarsson, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Why do they do it? : A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central Ltd. - 1748-5908. ; 15:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC. Methods: Six primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach. Results: Three main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients. Conclusions: Three reasons work together to explain primary care physicians’ use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
