Background There is recognition that the overuse of procedures, testing, and medications constitutes low-value care which strains the healthcare system and, in some circumstances, can cause unnecessary stress and harm for patients. Initiatives across dozens of countries have raised awareness about the harms of low-value care but have had mixed success and the levels of reductions realized have been modest. Similar to the complex drivers of implementation processes, there is a limited understanding of the individual and social behavioral aspects of de-implementation. While researchers have begun to use theory to elucidate the dynamics of de-implementation, the research remains largely atheoretical. The use of theory supports the understanding of how and why interventions succeed or fail and what key factors predict success. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and characterize the use of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what influences efforts to reduce low-value care. Methods We conducted a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2021. Building on previous research, 43 key terms were used to search the literature. The database searches identified 1998 unique articles for which titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion; 232 items were selected for full-text review. Results Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Over half of the included articles were published in the last 2 years. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was the most commonly used determinant framework (n = 22). Of studies that used classic theories, the majority used the Theory of Planned Behavior (n = 6). For implementation theories, Normalization Process Theory and COM-B were used (n = 7). Theories or frameworks were used primarily to identify determinants (n = 37) and inform data analysis (n = 31). Eleven types of low-value care were examined in the included studies, with prescribing practices (e.g., overuse, polypharmacy, and appropriate prescribing) targeted most frequently. Conclusions This scoping review provides a rigorous, comprehensive, and extensive synthesis of theoretical approaches used to understand and/or explain what factors influence efforts to reduce low-value care. The results of this review can provide direction and insight for future primary research to support de-implementation and the reduction of low-value care.

Background There is general scarcity of research on key elements of implementation processes and the factors which impact implementation success. Implementation of healthcare interventions is a complex process. Tools to support implementation can facilitate this process and improve effectiveness of the interventions and clinical outcomes. Understanding the impact of implementation support tools is a critical aspect of this process. The objective of this study was to solicit knowledge and agreement from relevant implementation science and knowledge translation healthcare experts in order to develop a process model of key elements in the implementation process. Methods A two round, modified Delphi study involving international experts in knowledge translation and implementation (researchers, scientists, professors, decision-makers) was conducted. Participants rated and commented on all aspects of the process model, including the organization, content, scope, and structure. Delphi questions rated at 75% agreement or lower were reviewed and revised. Qualitative comments supported the restructuring and refinement. A second-round survey followed the same process as Round 1. Results Fifty-four experts participated in Round 1, and 32 experts participated in Round 2. Twelve percent (n = 6) of the Round 1 questions did not reach agreement. Key themes for revision and refinement were: stakeholder engagement throughout the process, iterative nature of the implementation process; importance of context; and importance of using guiding theories or frameworks. The process model was revised and refined based on the quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 2. Agreement was achieved on all items in Round 2 and the Delphi concluded. Additional feedback was obtained regarding terminology, target users and definition of the implementation process. Conclusions High levels of agreement were attained for all sub-domains, elements, and sub-elements of the Implementation Process Model. This model will be used to develop an Implementation Support Tool to be used by healthcare providers to facilitate effective implementation and improved clinical outcomes.

Background Choosing Wisely (CW) is an international movement comprised of campaigns in more than 20 countries to reduce low-value care (LVC). De-implementation, the reduction or removal of a healthcare practice that offers little to no benefit or causes harm, is an emerging field of research. Little is known about the factors which (i) sustain LVC; and (ii) the magnitude of the problem of LVC. In addition, little is known about the processes of de-implementation, and if and how these processes differ from implementation endeavours. The objective of this study was to explicate the myriad factors which impact the processes and outcomes of de-implementation initiatives that are designed to address national Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals implementing Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations in healthcare settings in four provinces. The interview guide was developed using concepts from the literature and the Implementation Process Model (IPM) as a framework. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings Seventeen Choosing Wisely team members were interviewed. Participants identified numerous provider factors, most notably habit, which sustain LVC. Contrary to reporting in recent studies, the majority of LVC in the sample was not ‘patient facing’; therefore, patients were not a significant driver for the LVC, nor a barrier to reducing it. Participants detailed aspects of the magnitude of the problems of LVC, providing insight into the complexities and nuances of harm, resources and prevalence. Harm from potential or common infections, reactions, or overtreatment was viewed as the most significant types of harm. Unique factors influencing the processes of de-implementation reported were: influence of Choosing Wisely campaigns, availability of data, lack of targets and hard-coded interventions. Conclusions This study explicates factors ranging from those which impact the maintenance of LVC to factors that impact the success of de-implementation interventions intended to reduce them. The findings draw attention to the significance of unintentional factors, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of harm and resources to reduce LVC and illuminate the overstated impact of patients in de-implementation literature. These findings illustrate the complexities of de-implementation.

Background: The health-care community has a responsibility to address the environmental impact of delivering health-care services. Educational programmes present ideal fora to confer ‘environmental competencies’ to future health system leaders, managers, practitioners and researchers. The aim of this review is to synthesise the literature on health-care competencies, education and training of relevance to issues of environmental sustainability and climate change in the health sector. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of English language articles on environmental competencies in healthcare in the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and ProQuest databases published from inception to April 2019. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to synthesise the findings and develop a typology of environmental competencies. Results: Of the 902 unique citations, we identified 23 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Environmental competencies that align with general management skills were most frequent (40%), followed by research skills (37%). Three competencies specific to the environment (22%) were identified: resource stewardship ( n = 16), systems thinking ( n = 14) and social and environmental justice ( n = 7). The majority of work was identified in nursing, medicine and public health. Competencies were most commonly embedded in existing curricula or offered as new courses or workshops. Conclusion: Incorporating environmental competencies into education programmes will serve to raise awareness of, and advance the significance of, the health sector’s impact on climate change and environmental sustainability. Our findings that environmental competencies align with previously validated health-care competencies support the perspective that these competencies represent essential knowledge and skills for the health-care workforce.

BackgroundThere is recognition that the overuse of procedures, tests and medications strains the healthcare system financially and can cause unnecessary stress and harm to patients. In recent years, several initiatives have targeted the reduction or elimination of low-value practices in healthcare. Research suggests that passive interventions, such as the publication of guidelines, are often not sufficient to change behaviour and that active change interventions - interventions which actively implement strategies to change practices - are required to effect significant, sustained practice change. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and characterise studies of active change interventions designed to reduce or eliminate low-value healthcare practices.MethodsWe will conduct a review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus databases from inception. Building on previous research, 40 key terms will be used to search literature. The screening process will be conducted separately by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Empirical studies of active change interventions used to reduce or eliminate low-value practices will be included. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis will be used to categorise the characteristics of the studies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study. This scoping review will provide insights into the impact of several characteristics of active change interventions, including the number of interventions (single-faceted or multifaceted) and the level of implementation (individual or organisational). These results can provide guidance and direction for future research in de-implementation. The results will be disseminated through presentations at national and international conferences and the publication of a manuscript.

Background Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported. Methods We conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a “decision impact” assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review. Results 87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility. Conclusions This scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

No abstract

Background: There is general scarcity of research on key elements of implementation processes and the factors which impact implementation success. Implementation of healthcare interventions is a complex process. Tools to support implementation can facilitate this process and improve effectiveness of the interventions and clinical outcomes. Understanding the impact of implementation support tools is a critical aspect of this process. The objective of this study was to solicit knowledge and consensus from relevant implementation science and knowledge translation healthcare experts in order to refine and validate a process model of key elements in the implementation process.Methods: A two round consensus-based modified Delphi study involving international experts in knowledge translation and implementation (researchers, scientists, professors, decision-makers) was conducted. Participants rated and commented on all aspects of the process model, including the organization, content, scope, and structure. Delphi questions rated at 75% agreement or lower were reviewed and revised. Qualitative comments supported the restructuring and refinement. A second-round survey followed the same process as Round 1. Results: Fifty-four experts participated in Round 1, and 32 experts participated in Round 2. Twelve percent (n=6) of the Round 1 questions did not reach consensus. Key themes for revision and refinement were: stakeholder engagement throughout the process, iterative nature of the implementation process; importance of context; and importance of using guiding theories or frameworks. The process model was revised and refined based on the quantitative and qualitative data and reassessed by the experts in Round 2. Consensus was achieved on all items in Round 2 and the Delphi concluded. Additional feedback was obtained regarding terminology, target users and definition of the implementation process.Conclusions: High levels of agreement were attained for all sub-domains, elements, and sub-elements of the Implementation Process Model. This validated model will be used to develop an Implementation Support Tool to be used by healthcare providers to facilitate effective implementation and improved clinical outcomes.