Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature

• Published in: Implementation Research and Practice Vol. 1; p. 2633489520953762
• Main Authors: Nilsen, Per, Ingvarsson, Sara, Hasson, Henna, von Thiele Schwarz, Ulrica, Augustsson, Hanna
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-01-2020; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Review; health; low-value care; De-implementation; health care; scoping review
• ISSN: 2633-4895; 2633-4895
• DOI: 10.1177/2633489520953762

Background:
The aim of this scoping review was to identify theories, models, and frameworks for understanding the processes and determinants of de-implementing low-value care (LVC). We investigated theories, models, and frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (conceptual studies) and those that were originally developed for implementation of evidence-based practices but were applied in studies to analyze de-implementation of LVC (empirical studies).
Methods:
We performed a scoping review to identify theories, models, and frameworks used to describe, guide, or explain de-implementation of LVC, encompassing four stages following the identification of the research question: (1) identifying relevant studies; (2) study selection; (3) charting the data; and (4) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The database searches yielded 9,642 citations. After removing duplicates, 6,653 remained for the abstract screening process. After screening the abstracts, 76 citations remained. Of these, 10 studies were included in the review.
Results:
We identified 10 studies describing theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to understand de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented theories, models, or frameworks developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC (i.e., conceptual studies) and five studies applied an existing theory, model, or framework concerning implementation of evidence-based practices (i.e., empirical studies).
Conclusion:
Most of the theories, models, and frameworks that are used to analyze LVC suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC. The role of the patient is inconsistent in these theories, models, and frameworks; patients are accounted for in some but not in others. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation.
Plain language abstract
Achieving an evidence-based practice not only depends on implementation of evidence-based interventions (programs, methods, etc.) but also requires de-implementing interventions that are not evidence-based, that is, low-value care (LVC). Thus, de-implementation is the other side of the coin of an evidence-based practice. However, this is quite a new topic and knowledge is lacking concerning how de-implementation and implementation processes and determinants might differ. It is almost mandatory for implementation researchers to use theories, models, and frameworks (i.e., “theoretical approaches”) to describe, guide, or explain implementation processes and determinants. To what extent are such approaches also used with regard to de-implementation of LVC? And what are the characteristics of such approaches when analyzing de-implementation processes? We reviewed the literature to explore issues such as these. We identified only 10 studies describing theoretical approaches that have been used concerning de-implementation of LVC. Five studies presented approaches developed specifically for de-implementation of LVC and five studies applied an already-existing approach usually applied to analyze implementation processes. Most of the theoretical approaches we found suggest a multi-level understanding of de-implementation of LVC, that is, successfully de-implementing LVC may require strategies that target teams, departments, and organizations and merely focus on individual health care practitioners. The findings point to the need for more research to identify the most important processes and determinants for successful de-implementation of LVC, and to explore differences between de-implementation and implementation. In terms of practice and policy implications, the study underscores the relevance of addressing multiple levels when attempting to de-implement LVC.