ArticleBMJ quality & safety2023
Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for optimizing the utilization rates of coronary angiography in Norway.Research in health services & regions · 2026Article
- Reducing unwarranted variation in low-value health care in Norway: description of the NOR programme.Research in health services & regions · 2026Article
- De-implementation of healthcare interventions post-COVID-19: evidence from the Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme in England.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Exploring spillover effects following surgical de-implementation: an observational evaluation of primary care, referrals, and time to surgical intervention following reductions in the use of tonsillectomy and Dupuytren's contracture.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Tackling low-value care in Singapore: progress, pitfalls, and prospects.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- A large-scale mosquito larviciding in Tanga Region, Tanzania, reduced mosquito densities to varying degrees across malaria transmission risk strata.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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
- Relevance and flexibility are key: exploring healthcare managers' views and experiences of a de-adoption programme in the English National Health Service.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Protocol for a national intervention programme aimed to reduce unwarranted variation and overuse of shoulder arthroscopy in Norway.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Impact of hospital payment reform on rational use of antibiotics: a natural experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Reducing unwarranted variation: can a 'clinical dashboard' be helpful for hospital executive boards and top-level leaders?BMJ leader · 2024Article
- Intervention for reducing the overuse of upper endoscopy in patients <45 years: a protocol for a stepwise intervention programme.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Managing unwarranted variation in hospital care - findings from a regional audit in Norway.Research in health services & regions · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care.
methodWe sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment.
resultsWe found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month).
conclusionsOur analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme.
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.