Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30257678›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Physician perspectives on Choosing Wisely Canada as an approach to reduce unnecessary medical care: a qualitative study.

Mark Embrett, Glen E Randall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark EmbrettCentre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, CRL, Building, 282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada. embretmg@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3969-0219
Glen E RandallCentre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, CRL, Building, 282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4K1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing monies spent on unnecessary medical care is one possible target to improve value in healthcare systems. Regional variation in the provision of medical care suggests physician behaviour and patient demands influence the provision of unnecessary medical care. Recently, Choosing Wisely campaigns began using 'top 5 do-not-do' lists to target unnecessary medical care by encouraging greater physician and patient dialogue at the point of care. The present study aims to examine the rationale for Choosing Wisely Canada's (CWC) design and to analyse physician perceptions regarding the features of CWC aimed to reduce unnecessary medical care.

methodsThe study involved semi-structured interviews with 19 key informant physicians with CWC experience and the application of procedures of grounded theory to analyse interview transcripts and develop explanations addressing the objectives.

resultsParticipants reported that the CWC was the medical community's response to three pressures, namely (1) demand for unnecessary medical care from patients during the clinical encounter; (2) public perception that physicians do not always prioritise patients' needs; and (3) 'blunt' government tools aimed to reduce costs rather than improving patient care. Respondents stated that involving the patient in decision-making would help alleviate these pressures by promoting the clinical encounter as the paramount decision-point in achieving necessary care. However, CWC does not address several of the key reasons, from a physician perspective, for providing unnecessary medical care, including time pressures in the clinical encounter, uncertainty about the optimal care pathway and fear of litigation.

conclusionThis study contributes to our understanding of the perceptions of physicians regarding the CWC campaign. Specifically, physicians believe that CWC does little to address the clinical reasons for unnecessary medical care. Ultimately, because CWC has limited impact on physician behaviour or patient expectations, it is unlikely to have a major influence on unnecessary medical care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingDelivery of Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'AttitudeCanadaCost ControlFearFemaleGovernmentHumansMaleMalpracticeMedical OveruseChoosing WiselyHealth policyshared decision-makingunnecessary medical care

Identifiers

PMID30257678
PMCPMC6158820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.