20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments

      research-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.

          Abstract

          Background

          Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments.

          Methods

          The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert).

          Results

          Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%).

          Conclusions

          Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

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

              Interventions Aimed at Reducing Use of Low-Value Health Services: A Systematic Review.

              The effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce low-value care has been insufficiently summarized to allow for translation to practice. This article systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value care and the quality of those studies. We found that multicomponent interventions addressing both patient and clinician roles in overuse have the greatest potential to reduce low-value care. Clinical decision support and performance feedback are promising strategies with a solid evidence base, and provider education yields changes by itself and when paired with other strategies. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance, insurer restrictions, and risk-sharing contracts to reduce use of low-value care. While the literature reveals important evidence on strategies used to reduce low-value care, meaningful gaps persist. More experimentation, paired with rigorous evaluation and publication, is needed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pegallen@wustl.edu
                rebekahjacob@wustl.edu
                renee.parks@wustl.edu
                smazzucca@wustl.edu
                hengrui.hu@wustl.edu
                m.robinson@wustl.edu
                dobbinsm@mcmaster.ca
                DDekker@naccho.org
                mpadek@wustl.edu
                rbrownson@wustl.edu
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                30 March 2020
                30 March 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 258
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4367.6, ISNI 0000 0001 2355 7002, Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, , Washington University in St. Louis, ; One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO 63130-4838 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, , McMaster University, McMaster Innovation Park (MIP), ; 175 Longwood Road South, Suite 210a, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 0A1 Canada
                [3 ]GRID grid.416521.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0623 9821, National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), ; 1201 Eye Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.4367.6, ISNI 0000 0001 2355 7002, Department of Surgery (Division of Public Health Sciences) and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, , Washington University School of Medicine; Washington University in St. Louis, ; 4921 Parkview Place, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA
                Article
                5141
                10.1186/s12913-020-05141-5
                7106610
                32228688
                c5546d00-e62b-4d75-940b-fff56deacb66
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 April 2019
                : 23 March 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000062, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases;
                Award ID: 5R01DK109913
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: 1P50CA244431
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000030, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
                Award ID: U48DP006395
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                implementation science,mis-implementation,de-implementation,evidence-based decision making,evidence-based public health,health departments

                Comments

                Comment on this article