Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39947899›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2025

Relative importance and interactions of factors influencing low-value care provision: a factorial survey experiment among Swedish primary care physicians.

Marta Roczniewska, Hanna Augustsson, Sara Ingvarsson, Emma Hedberg Rundgren, Kamil Szymański, Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Per Nilsen, Henna Hasson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Marta RoczniewskaDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden marta.roczniewska@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-1455
Hanna AugustssonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sara IngvarssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emma Hedberg RundgrenDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kamil SzymańskiDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ulrica von Thiele SchwarzDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per NilsenDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Henna HassonDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3827-6841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-value care (LVC) describes practices that persist in healthcare, despite being ineffective, inefficient or causing harm. Several determinants for the provision of LVC have been identified, but understanding how these factors influence professionals' decisions, individually and jointly, is a necessary next step to guide deimplementation.

methodsA factorial survey experiment was employed using vignettes that presented hypothetical medical scenarios among 593 Swedish primary care physicians. Each vignette varied systematically by factors such as patient age, patient request for the LVC, physician's perception of this practice, practice cost to the primary care centre and time taken to deliver it. For each scenario, we measured the reported likelihood of providing the LVC. We collected information on the physician's worry about missing a serious illness.

resultsPatient requests and physicians' positive perceptions of the practice were the factors that increased the reported likelihood of providing LVC the most (by 14 and 13 percentage points (pp), respectively). When the LVC was low in cost or not time-consuming, patient requests further boosted the likelihood of provision by 29 and 18 pp. In contrast, credible evidence against the LVC reduced the role of patient requests by 11 pp. Physicians' fear of missing a serious illness was linked with higher reported probability of providing LVC, and the credibility of the evidence against the LVC reduced the role of this concern.

conclusionsThe findings highlight that patient requests enhance the role of many determinants, while the credibility of evidence diminishes the impact of others. Overall, these findings point to the relevance of increased clinician knowledge about LVC, tools for patient communication and the use of decision support tools to reduce the uncertainty in decision-making.

Indexed as

Physicians, Primary CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareQuality of Health CareAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenDecision makingImplementation sciencePrimary care

Identifiers

PMID39947899
PMCPMC12418588

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.