SynthesisBMC medicine2020
Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Strategies to Deimplement Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Acceptability of a companion patient guide to support expert consensus guidelines on surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2022Trial
- Discrepancies in low-value practices across cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. A narrative review.The European journal of general practice · 2026Review
- Decades of intensive care medicine trials: what randomised evidence has changed, corrected, and still questions to resolve.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Physician-suggested strategies for deimplementing low-value care in Swedish primary care: a qualitative analysis across system levels.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Low-value medical orders: bridging the gap between concept and action in reducing healthcare waste.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators for reducing low-value home-based nursing care: A qualitative exploratory study among homecare professionals.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- The impact of Choosing WiselyBMC health services research · 2025Article
- Advancing the Field of Deimplementation: Perspectives on Low-Value Clinical Preventive Services.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- De-implementation of low-value home-based nursing care: an effect and process evaluation.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Pressure Injury Guidelines for Nutrition Assessment and Alternating Pressure Air Mattress Allocation: A Qualitative Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
- Subtle Differences in Physician Communication and Substantial Impacts on Patient Decision-Making About Low-Value Care: An Experimental Vignette Study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Breaking with the status quo in end-of-life care through de-implementation.Journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Delivering a national de-adoption programme: a documentary analysis of local commissioning policy compliance with England's Evidence-based Interventions programme (EBI).BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of different de-implementation strategies in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
- Factors associated with patients' demand for low-value care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Low-value practices in primary care: a cross-sectional study comparing data between males and females in Spain.BMJ open · 2024Observational
- Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care.
resultsFrom 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy.
conclusionsDe-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).
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.