Challenges and Opportunities for Reducing Low-Value Care; A Response to Recent Commentaries

Document Type : Correspondence

Authors

1 Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

2 Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 University of California Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Keywords


Six commentaries have been published in reaction to our article “Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands”.1  In our original article, we have interviewed de-implementation experts in Canada, the United States and the Netherlands. We identified key national-level factors affecting the use of low-value care in those countries. The authors of the six commentaries have added valuable remarks to our key factors and mentioned several other factors that might play a role in stimulating low-value care. This is helpful in showing the complexity of reducing low-value care. There are recommendations to reduce low-value care across many countries, however these are challenging to implement. ...(Read more...)

  1. 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. 2021;11(8):1514-1521. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.53
  2. Ingvarsson S, Nilsen P, Hasson H. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2762-2764. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7017
  3. Strack F, Deutsch R. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(3):220-247. doi:1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
  4. Scott IA, Soon J, Elshaug AG, Lindner R. Countering cognitive biases in minimising low value care. Med J Aust. 2017;206(9):407-411. doi:5694/mja16.00999
  5. van Bodegom-Vos L, Marang-van de Mheen P. Reducing low-value care: uncertainty as crucial cross-cutting theme: Comment on "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(9):1964-1966. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7027
  6. Soong C, Shojania KG. Education as a low-value improvement intervention: often necessary but rarely sufficient. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(5):353-357. doi:1136/bmjqs-2019-010411
  7. Sypes EE, Leigh JP, Stelfox HT, Niven DJ. 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.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(8):1592-1594. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6968
  8. Grimshaw JM, Patey AM, Kirkham KR, et al. De-implementing wisely: developing the evidence base to reduce low-value care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(5):409-417. doi:1136/bmjqs-2019-010060
  9. Zadro JR, Maher CG. Overview of the drivers of low-value care: Comment on "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):1595-1598. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6833
  10. Kroon D, Steutel NF, Vermeulen H, et al. Effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce inappropriate drug prescribing: an overview of interventions. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2021;12(3):423-433. doi:1093/jphsr/rmab038
  11. Niven DJ, Mrklas KJ, Holodinsky JK, et al. Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2015;13:255. doi:1186/s12916-015-0488-z
  12. Raudasoja AJ, Falkenbach P, Vernooij RWM, et al. Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):65. doi:1186/s13012-022-01238-z
  13. Colla CH, Mainor AJ, Hargreaves C, Sequist T, Morden N. Interventions aimed at reducing use of low-value health services: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2017;74(5):507-550. doi:1177/1077558716656970
  14. Patey AM, Hurt CS, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Changing behaviour 'more or less'-do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):134. doi:1186/s13012-018-0826-6
  15. Johnston M, Carey RN, Connell Bohlen LE, et al. Development of an online tool for linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action based on triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus. Transl Behav Med. 2021;11(5):1049-1065. doi:1093/tbm/ibaa050
  16. Kroon D, van Dulmen SA, Westert GP, Jeurissen PPT, Kool RB. Development of the SPREAD framework to support the scaling of de-implementation strategies: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(11):e062902. doi:1136/bmjopen-2022-062902