Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research: a systematic scoping review.
Clinical trials
Cluster randomized trial
De-implementation
Low-value care
Methods
Overuse
Randomized controlled trial
Scoping review
Trial design
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
received:
30
06
2022
accepted:
19
09
2022
entrez:
1
10
2022
pubmed:
2
10
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design. OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias.
RESULTS
Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%).
CONCLUSIONS
De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design.
REGISTRATION
OSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36183140
doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01238-z
pii: 10.1186/s13012-022-01238-z
pmc: PMC9526943
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JAMA. 2019 Dec 24;322(24):2441-2443
pubmed: 31860036
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD000409
pubmed: 17943742
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998 Jan;46(1):77-82
pubmed: 9434669
Fam Pract. 2016 Apr;33(2):192-9
pubmed: 26797464
Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 21;15(1):93
pubmed: 33087154
Implement Sci. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):2
pubmed: 31915032
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 1;47(1):321-331
pubmed: 29025158
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 3;19(1):446
pubmed: 31269933
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:108-117
pubmed: 31220570
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 6;12(9):e0181970
pubmed: 28877170
Lancet. 2001 May 5;357(9266):1406-9
pubmed: 11356439
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;126:37-44
pubmed: 32562833
JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 1;75(10):1003-1011
pubmed: 30073273
Med Educ. 2012 Jan;46(1):97-106
pubmed: 22150201
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Aug;57(8):1388-94
pubmed: 19549022
Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Nov 01;30(9):736-739
pubmed: 29741672
Trials. 2018 Feb 22;19(1):110
pubmed: 29467013
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Nov 10;4(6):e002104
pubmed: 31799007
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Mar;174(3):425-31
pubmed: 24474434
Trials. 2016 Sep 06;17(1):438
pubmed: 27600609
BMJ. 2007 Feb 17;334(7589):349-51
pubmed: 17303884
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 May 30;19(1):345
pubmed: 31146744
Implement Sci. 2020 May 25;15(1):38
pubmed: 32450898
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 06;13:255
pubmed: 26444862
Milbank Q. 2021 Dec;99(4):1024-1058
pubmed: 34402553
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000848
pubmed: 30775013
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Nov 1;181(11):1431-1432
pubmed: 34338740
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Dec;69(12):3693-3695
pubmed: 34499742
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Med Care Res Rev. 2017 Oct;74(5):507-550
pubmed: 27402662
Pediatrics. 2001 Feb;107(2):E15
pubmed: 11158489
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:43-50
pubmed: 28720516
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000858
pubmed: 30775014
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Feb;37(2):191-197
pubmed: 29401020
Lancet. 2013 Oct 5;382(9899):1175-82
pubmed: 23915885
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar;28(3):205-214
pubmed: 30082331
Postgrad Med J. 2020 Sep;96(1139):556-559
pubmed: 32467108
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Feb 20;17(1):20
pubmed: 28219437
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 20;13(1):47
pubmed: 29554972
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Feb 04;2(1):13
pubmed: 33541443
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jul 20;2(2):e000266
pubmed: 29081997
Elife. 2019 Jun 11;8:
pubmed: 31182188
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15
pubmed: 21247734