21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Letting Go: Conceptualizing Intervention De‐implementation in Public Health and Social Service Settings

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • Thinking through when to let go: theory for identifying interventions that may not add value.

          • Examples of interventions ideal for discontinuation in public health and social service settings.

          • De‐implementation of interventions in the context of dissemination and implementation science.

          Abstract

          The discontinuation of interventions that should be stopped, or de‐implementation, has emerged as a novel line of inquiry within dissemination and implementation science. As this area grows in human services research, like public health and social work, theory is needed to help guide scientific endeavors. Given the infancy of de‐implementation, this conceptual narrative provides a definition and criteria for determining if an intervention should be de‐implemented. We identify three criteria for identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation: (a) interventions that are not effective or harmful, (b) interventions that are not the most effective or efficient to provide, and (c) interventions that are no longer necessary. Detailed, well‐documented examples illustrate each of the criteria. We describe de‐implementation frameworks, but also demonstrate how other existing implementation frameworks might be applied to de‐implementation research as a supplement. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of de‐implementation in the context of other stages of implementation, like sustainability and adoption; next steps for de‐implementation research, especially identifying interventions appropriate for de‐implementation in a systematic manner; and highlight special ethical considerations to advance the field of de‐implementation research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Early Trends Among Seven Recommendations From the Choosing Wisely Campaign.

          The Choosing Wisely campaign consists of more than 70 lists produced by specialty societies of medical practices or procedures of minimal clinical benefit to patients in most situations, with recommendations regarding judicious use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SIDS and Other Sleep-Related Infant Deaths: Evidence Base for 2016 Updated Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment.

            Approximately 3500 infants die annually in the United States from sleep-related infant deaths, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ill-defined deaths, and accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed. After an initial decrease in the 1990s, the overall sleep-related infant death rate has not declined in more recent years. Many of the modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for SIDS and other sleep-related infant deaths are strikingly similar. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a safe sleep environment that can reduce the risk of all sleep-related infant deaths. Recommendations for a safe sleep environment include supine positioning, use of a firm sleep surface, room-sharing without bed-sharing, and avoidance of soft bedding and overheating. Additional recommendations for SIDS risk reduction include avoidance of exposure to smoke, alcohol, and illicit drugs; breastfeeding; routine immunization; and use of a pacifier. New evidence and rationale for recommendations are presented for skin-to-skin care for newborn infants, bedside and in-bed sleepers, sleeping on couches/armchairs and in sitting devices, and use of soft bedding after 4 months of age. In addition, expanded recommendations for infant sleep location are included. The recommendations and strength of evidence for each recommendation are published in the accompanying policy statement, "SIDS and Other Sleep-Related Infant Deaths: Updated 2016 Recommendations for a Safe Infant Sleeping Environment," which is included in this issue.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review

              Background Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed ‘related articles’ function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Results From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65 %) were original research with the majority (59 %) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption—the most frequently cited was “disinvest” (39 % of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50 %), followed by identifying low-value practices (47 %), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40 %). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16 % to 46 %, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41 %) that demonstrate harm (73 %) and/or lack of efficacy (63 %) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption. Conclusions This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0488-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                virginia.mckay@wustl.edu
                Journal
                Am J Community Psychol
                Am J Community Psychol
                10.1002/(ISSN)1573-2770
                AJCP
                American Journal of Community Psychology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0091-0562
                1573-2770
                03 July 2018
                September 2018
                : 62
                : 1-2 ( doiID: 10.1002/ajcp.2018.62.issue-1pt2 )
                : 189-202
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Center for Public Health Systems Science Brown School Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 2 ] Institute of Clinical and Translational Science Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 3 ] Prevention Research Center in St. Louis Brown School Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 4 ] Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences) and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center Washington University School of Medicine Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 5 ] Center for Mental Health Services Research George Warren Brown School of Social Work Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 6 ] Institute for Public Health Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO USA
                [ 7 ] Department of Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville TN USA
                [ 8 ] Center for Clinical Quality and Implementation Research Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville TN USA
                Article
                AJCP12258
                10.1002/ajcp.12258
                6175194
                29971792
                0c1cc1c7-54ba-464f-920c-b126c457173c
                © 2018 The Authors. American Journal of Community Psychology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Community Research and Action

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 14, Words: 10318
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute of Mental Health
                Award ID: 5T32 MH019960
                Award ID: 1R21 MH115772‐01
                Award ID: 5R25 MH080916
                Funded by: National Cancer Institute
                Award ID: 5R25CA171994‐02
                Funded by: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
                Award ID: 1P30DK092950
                Funded by: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
                Award ID: 1T32HL130357
                Funded by: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
                Award ID: UL1 TR000448
                Categories
                Empirical Review
                Empirical Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                ajcp12258
                September 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.0 mode:remove_FC converted:08.10.2018

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                de‐implementation,implementation science,theory,public health,social service

                Comments

                Comment on this article