We developed a typology that provides insight in the different reasons for care to be of low-value. We believe that this typology is helpful in designing a tailor-made strategy for reducing low-value care.

ObjectiveTo assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.DesignA qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy.Data extraction and synthesisThe factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.ResultsWe identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%).ConclusionsThis study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Background: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) provide information on a patient's health status coming directly from the patient. Measuring PROs with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has gained wide interest in clinical practice for individual patient care, as well as in quality improvement, and for providing transparency of outcomes to stakeholders through public reporting. However, current knowledge of selecting and implementing PROMs for these purposes is scattered, and not readily available for clinicians and quality managers in healthcare organizations. The objective of this study is to develop a framework with tools to support the systematic selection, implementation and evaluation of PROs and PROMs in individual patient care, for quality improvement and public reporting. Methods: We developed the framework in a national project in the Netherlands following a user-centered design. The development process of the framework contained five iterative components: (a) identification of existing tools, (b) identification of user requirements and designing steps for selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs, (c) discussing a prototype of the framework during a national workshop, (d) developing a web version, (e) pretesting of the framework. A total of 40 users with different perspectives (clinicians, patient representatives, quality managers, purchasers, researchers) have been consulted. Results: The final framework is presented as the PROM-cycle that consists of eight steps in four phases: (1) goal setting, (2) selecting PROs and PROMs, (3) developing and testing of quality indicator(s), (4) implementing and evaluating the PROM(s) and indicator(s). Users emphasized that the first step is the key element in which the why, for whom and setting of the PROM has to be defined. This information is decisive for the following steps. For each step the PROM-cycle provides guidance and tools, with instruments, checklists, methods, handbooks, and standards supporting the process. Conclusion: We developed a framework to support the selection and implementation of PROs and PROMs. Each step provides guidance and tools to support the process. The PROM-cycle and its tools are publicly available and can be used by clinicians, quality managers, patient representatives and other experts involved in using PROMS. Through periodic evaluation and updates, tools will be added for national and international use of the PROM-cycle.

Background: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries. Methods: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a ‘more is better’ culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy. Conclusion: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care.

ObjectiveGeneral practitioners have an important role in reducing low-value care as gatekeepers of the health system. The aim of this study was to assess the experiences of Dutch general practitioners regarding low-value care and to identify their needs to decrease low-value primary care.DesignWe performed a cross-sectional study.ParticipantsWe sent a survey to 500 general practitioners.SettingPrimary care in the Netherlands.Primary and secondary outcomesThe survey contained questions about the provision of low-value care and on clinical cases about lumbosacral spine X-rays in patients with low back pain and vitamin B12 laboratory tests without an evidence-based indication. We also asked general practitioners what they needed to reduce low-value care.ResultsA total of 182 general practitioners (37%) responded. 67% indicated that low-value care practices are regularly provided in general practice. 57% of the general practitioners have seen negative consequences of low-value care, in particular side effects of medication. The most provided low-value care practices are medication prescriptions such as antibiotics and laboratory tests such as vitamin B12 tests. The most reported drivers are patient-related. General practitioners want to maintain a good relationship with their patients by offering their patients an intervention instead of watchful waiting. Lack of time also plays a major role. In order to reduce low-value care, general practitioners suggested that educating patients on the value of tests and treatments might help. Supporting general practitioners and other healthcare professionals with clear guidelines as well as having more time for consultation were also mentioned by general practitioners.ConclusionGeneral practitioners are aware of providing unnecessary care despite their role as gatekeepers and have reasons for this. They need support in order to change their practice. This support might consist of better education of healthcare professionals and providing more time for consultation. Local and national media, such as websites and television, could be used to educate patients while guidelines could support professionals in reducing low-value care.