Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31383018›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence.

Christopher Burton, Lynne Williams, Tracey Bucknall, Stephen Edwards, Denise Fisher, Beth Hall, Gill Harris, Peter Jones, Matthew Makin, Anne McBride and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors.

Christopher BurtonNoreen Edwards Chair of Rehabilitation and Nursing Research, Head of School, School of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK. c.burton@bangor.ac.uk.
Lynne WilliamsBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Tracey BucknallSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephen EdwardsBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Denise FisherBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Beth HallBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Gill HarrisBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.
Peter JonesBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Matthew MakinThe Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Greater Manchester, UK.
Anne McBrideAlliance Manchester Business School, Manchester University, Manchester, UK.
Rachel MeacockDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester University, Manchester, UK.
John ParkinsonBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Jo Rycroft-MaloneBangor University, Bangor, UK.
Justin WaringNottingham University Business School, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 16/115/18
6 · The paper itself

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

Administrative PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareOrganizational InnovationStakeholder ParticipationEvidence-Based MedicineHumansReferral and ConsultationReview Literature as TopicConcept analysisDe-implementationHealth servicesLow-value practiceOveruseRealist synthesis

Identifiers

PMID31383018
PMCPMC6683493

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.