Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34402553›Full record

SynthesisThe Milbank quarterly2021

The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review.

Betsy Q Cliff, Anton L V Avanceña, Richard A Hirth, Shoou-Yih Daniel Lee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Milbank quarterly, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Trial
  11. Interruptive Electronic Alerts for Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Underdiagnosis of Health: A Key Driver of Overdiagnosis of Disease.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Betsy Q CliffSchool of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago.
Anton L V AvanceñaSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan.
Richard A HirthSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan.
Shoou-Yih Daniel LeeCollege of Health Professions, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Funding

Institutional Career DevelopmentKL2TR002002 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI PHILLIPS, SHANE A · 2016 to 2024
$6.8M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points Dissemination of Choosing Wisely guidelines alone is unlikely to reduce the use of low-value health services. Interventions by health systems to implement Choosing Wisely guidelines can reduce the use of low-value services. Multicomponent interventions targeting clinicians are currently the most effective types of interventions. CONTEXT: Choosing Wisely aims to reduce the use of unnecessary, low-value medical services through development of recommendations related to service utilization. Despite the creation and dissemination of these recommendations, evidence shows low-value services are still prevalent. This paper synthesizes literature on interventions designed to reduce medical care identified as low value by Choosing Wisely and evaluates which intervention characteristics are most effective.

methodsWe searched peer-reviewed and gray literature from the inception of Choosing Wisely in 2012 through June 2019 to identify interventions in the United States motivated by or using Choosing Wisely recommendations. We also included studies measuring the impact of Choosing Wisely on its own, without interventions. We developed a coding guide and established coding agreement. We coded all included articles for types of services targeted, components of each intervention, results of the intervention, study type, and, where applicable, study quality. We measured the success rate of interventions, using chi-squared tests or Wald tests to compare across interventions.

findingsWe reviewed 131 articles. Eighty-eight percent of interventions focused on clinicians only; 48% included multiple components. Compared with dissemination of Choosing Wisely recommendations only, active interventions were more likely to generate intended results (65% vs 13%, p < 0.001) and, among those, interventions with multiple components were more successful than those with one component (77% vs 47%, p = 0.002). The type of services targeted did not matter for success. Clinician-based interventions were more effective than consumer-based, though there is a dearth of studies on consumer-based interventions. Only 17% of studies included a control arm.

conclusionsInterventions built on the Choosing Wisely recommendations can be effective at changing practice patterns to reduce the use of low-value care. Interventions are more effective when targeting clinicians and using more than one component. There is a need for high-quality studies that include active controls.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorLow-Value CareBiasHumansUnited StatesChoosing Wisely guidelinesdelivery of health carehealth care qualityhealth services/economicshealth services/standards

Identifiers

PMID34402553
PMCPMC8718584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.