ArticleSystematic reviews2019
Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lingering sex and age disparities in dolutegravir uptake among adults with HIV: a multicountry observational cohort study.BMJ global health · 2026Observational
- Nurses' Attitudes and Clinical Judgment on Skin Disinfection Before Subcutaneous Injection: Impact of Setting, Experience, and Normative Beliefs.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Institutionalisation of convergent medical innovation: an empirical study of the MRI-guided linear accelerator in the Netherlands and the United States.Innovation (North Sydney, N.S.W.) · 2025Article
- A Realist Review Protocol into the Contexts and Mechanisms That Enable the Inclusion of Environmental Sustainability Outcomes in the Design of Lean Healthcare Improvement Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Increasing venous thromboembolism risk assessment through a whole hospital-based intervention: a pre-post service evaluation to demonstrate quality improvement.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- Relevance and use of health policy, health systems and health services research for strengthening rehabilitation in real-life settings: methodological considerations.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Factors associated with nonadherence to the American Academy of Pediatrics 2014 bronchiolitis guidelines: A retrospective study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- How do healthcare professionals make decisions concerning low-value care practices? Study protocol of a factorial survey experiment on de-implementation.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Oral health interventions for older people in residential aged care facilities: a protocol for a realist systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Guideline-Adherent Pulse Oximetry Use in Bronchiolitis.Journal of hospital medicine · 2021Article
- Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStrategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation. DISCUSSION: This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017081030.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.