ArticleImplementation science : IS2020
Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physician-suggested strategies for deimplementing low-value care in Swedish primary care: a qualitative analysis across system levels.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Routine medical care for adults with musculoskeletal disorders in the Indigenous community of Pimicikamak, northern Manitoba before and after implementing the Global Spine Care Initiative model: a retrospective chart review with a 10-month post-implementation window: A collaborative research project between World Spine Care Canada (WSCC), Pimicikamack Okimawin, and Cross Lake Nursing Station.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2025Article
- Relative importance and interactions of factors influencing low-value care provision: a factorial survey experiment among Swedish primary care physicians.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Medicines and society: systemic change needed to address overprescribing.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Impact of eliciting treatment priorities on analgesic prescribing in older patients with high levels of polypharmacy.Family practice · 2025Article
- Evidence is not enough: health technology reassessment to de-implement low-value care.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Enablers and barriers to a quaternary prevention approach: a qualitative study of field experts.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to reducing low-value care for the management of low back pain in Iran: a qualitative multi-professional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Clinical competence, communication ability and adherence to choosing wisely recommendations for lipid reducing drug use in older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Strategies to reduce low-value care - An applied behavior analysis using a single-case design.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Organizational influences on the use of low-value care in primary health care - a qualitative interview study with physicians in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Strategies for de-implementation of low-value care-a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Low-value care in musculoskeletal health care: Is there a way forward?Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2022Review
- Management strategies to de-implement low-value care-an applied behavior analysis.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Understanding low-value care and associated de-implementation processes: a qualitative study of Choosing Wisely Interventions across Canadian hospitals.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Does de-implementation of low-value care impact the patient-clinician relationship? A mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of low-value care (LVC) is widespread and has an impact on both the use of resources and the quality of care. However, few studies have thus far studied the factors influencing the use of LVC from the perspective of the practitioners themselves. The aim of this study is to understand why physicians within primary care use LVC.
methodsSix primary health care centers in the Stockholm Region were purposively selected. Focus group discussions were conducted with physicians (n = 31) working in the centers. The discussions were coded inductively using a grounded theory approach.
resultsThree main reasons for performing LVC were identified. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do was related to being unaware of the LVC status of a practice, guidelines perceived as conflicting, guidelines perceived to be irrelevant for the target patient population, or a lack of trust in the guidelines. Perceived pressure from others concerned patient pressure, pressure from other physicians, or pressure from the health care system. A desire to do something for the patients was associated with the fact that the visit in itself prompts action, symptoms to relieve, or that patients' emotions need to be reassured. The three reasons are interdependent. Uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do have made it more difficult to handle the pressure from others and to refrain from doing something for the patients. The pressure from others and the desire to do something for the patients enhanced the uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do. Furthermore, the pressure from others influenced the desire to do something for the patients.
conclusionsThree reasons work together to explain primary care physicians' use of LVC: uncertainty and disagreement about what not to do, perceived pressure from others, and the desire to do something for the patients. The reasons may, in turn, be influenced by the health care system, but the decision nevertheless seemed to be up to the individual physician. The findings suggest that the de-implementation of LVC needs to address the three reasons from a systems perspective.
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.