Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges; Comment on “Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

2 Department of Health, Medical and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

3 Unit for implementation and evaluation, Center for Epidemiology and Community Medicine (CES), Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Interest has increased in the topic of de-implementation, ie, reducing so-called low-value care (LVC). The article “Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands” by Verkerk and colleagues identifies national-level factors affecting LVC use in those three countries. This commentary raises three critical points regarding the study. First, the study does not clearly define the national level. Secondly, national-level factors might not be relevant for all types of LVCs and thirdly, the study’s rather limited sample makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. We also include some critical comments related to some of the study’s findings in relation to results of our recently published scoping review of the international literature on de-implementation and use of LVC and an interview study with primary care physicians on LVC use. Finally, we provide some suggestions for further research that we believe is needed to improve understanding of LVC use and facilitate its de-implementation.

Keywords

References

  1. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet. 2017;390(10090):156-168. doi:1016/S0140-6736(16)32585-5
  2. Verkerk EW, Van Dulmen SA, Born K, Gupta R, Westert GP, Kool RB. Key factors that promote low-value care: views of experts from the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(8):1514-1521. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.53
  3. Augustsson H, Ingvarsson S, Nilsen P, et al. Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(1):13. doi:1186/s43058-021-00110-3
  4. Ingvarsson S, Augustsson H, Hasson H, Nilsen P, von Thiele Schwarz U, von Knorring M. Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):93. doi:1186/s13012-020-01052-5
  5. Augustsson H, Casales Morici B, Hasson H, et al. National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):92. doi:1186/s12961-022-00895-2
  6. Greene SE, Massone R. A survey of emergency medicine residents’ perspectives of the choosing wisely campaign. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(6):853-855.
  7. Buist DS, Chang E, Handley M, et al. Primary Care Clinicians' Perspectives on Reducing Low-Value Care in an Integrated Delivery System. Perm J. 2016;20(1):41-46. doi:7812/TPP/15-086
  8. Alber K, Kuehlein T, Schedlbauer A, Schaffer S. Medical overuse and quaternary prevention in primary care - A qualitative study with general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18(1):99. doi:1186/s12875-017-0667-4
  9. Chan PS, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Patient and hospital characteristics associated with inappropriate percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(24):2274-2281. doi:1016/j.jacc.2013.07.086
  10. Schmidt ML, Spencer MD, Davidson LE. Patient, provider, and practice characteristics associated with inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in ambulatory practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(3):307-315. doi:1017/ice.2017.263
  11. Ladapo JA, Blecker S, Douglas PS. Physician decision making and trends in the use of cardiac stress testing in the United States: an analysis of repeated cross-sectional data. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(7):482-490. doi:7326/M14-0296
  12. Greenwood BN, Agarwal R, Agarwal R, Gopal A. The when and why of abandonment: the role of organizational differences in medical technology life cycles. Manage Sci. 2016;63(9):2948-2966.
  13. Mafi JN, Russell K, Bortz BA, Dachary M, Hazel WA Jr, Fendrick AM. Low-Cost, High-Volume Health Services Contribute The Most To Unnecessary Health Spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(10):1701-1704. doi:1377/hlthaff.2017.0385
  14. Hines JZ, Sewell JL, Sehgal NL, Moriates C, Horton CK, Chen AH. “Choosing wisely” in an academic department of medicine. Am J Med Qual. 2014;30(6):566-570.
  15. Pickles K, Carter SM, Rychetnik L, Entwistle VA. Doctors' perspectives on PSA testing illuminate established differences in prostate cancer screening rates between Australia and the UK: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e011932. doi:1136/bmjopen-2016-011932
  16. Cope AL, Francis NA, Wood F, Chestnutt IG. Antibiotic prescribing in UK general dental practice: a cross-sectional study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44(2):145-153. doi:1111/cdoe.12199
  17. Selby K, Cornuz J, Cohidon C, Gaspoz JM, Senn N. How do Swiss general practitioners agree with and report adhering to a top-five list of unnecessary tests and treatments? Results of a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):32-38. doi:1080/13814788.2017.1395018
  18. Han PK, Klabunde CN, Noone AM, et al. Physicians' beliefs about breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse. Med Care. 2013;51(4):315-323. doi:1097/MLR.0b013e31827da908
  19. Braman SS. Chronic cough due to acute bronchitis: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2006;129(1 Suppl):95S-103S. doi:1378/chest.129.1_suppl.95S
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 11
November 2022
Pages 2762-2764

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 December 2021
  • Revise Date: 30 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 19 October 2022
  • First Publish Date: 22 October 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics