De-implementation of low-value care: contrasting theories, models, and frameworks to generate methodological guidance.

backgroundLow-value care remains pervasive across healthcare systems and consumes scarce resources while exposing patients to avoidable harms. De-implementation, the purposeful process of reducing, restricting, replacing, or discontinuing low-value practices, has gained momentum, yet the field still lacks clear methodological guidance grounded in theory. De-implementation is often treated as "reverse implementation", despite accumulating evidence that stopping practices can activate distinct mechanisms and constraints. MAIN BODY: In this paper, we synthesize and contrast theories, process models, and frameworks relevant to de-implementation of low-value care to generate actionable methodological guidance. Drawing on a theory-informed narrative review and constant-comparative synthesis, we identify where de-implementation converges with implementation (e.g., staged processes; multilevel determinants; use of established determinant, strategy, and outcome frameworks) and where it diverges in ways that matter for design and evaluation. Across sources, three recurring lenses structure these divergences: (i) the psychology of stopping (habit disruption, loss aversion, cognitive biases, professional identity threats), (ii) multi-level constraints and politics (incentives, regulation, professional norms, stakeholder interests), and (iii) the nature of the low-value practice and endpoint (reduction vs. restriction vs. elimination; replacement vs. disenchantment discontinuance). We translate these contrasts into ten streamlined methodological recommendations that specify what investigators should state and report in practice, including configuration (stand-alone vs. embedded/paired), low-value classification, explicit determinant-to-strategy-to-mechanism logic, inclusion of patient experience and unintended consequences, and dual-trajectory evaluation when substitution is involved.

conclusionDe-implementation is not simply implementation in reverse. Methodological rigor in de-implementation research requires explicitly specifying configuration and endpoint, aligning strategies with stopping-specific mechanisms and multilevel constraints, and evaluating beyond utilization to include mechanisms, patient experience, equity-relevant impacts, and unintended consequences. This paper provides a practical, theory-grounded set of recommendations to strengthen the design, evaluation, and reporting of future de-implementation studies.