Defining and conceptualizing outcomes for de-implementation: key distinctions from implementation outcomes

Beth Prusaczyk, Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran, Beth Prusaczyk, Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran

Abstract

Background: Increasingly, scholars argue that de-implementation is a distinct concept from implementation; factors contributing to stopping a current practice might be distinct from those that encourage adoption of a new one. One such distinction is related to de-implementation outcomes. We offer preliminary analysis and guidance on de-implementation outcomes, including how they may differ from or overlap with implementation outcomes, how they may be conceptualized and measured, and how they could be measured in different settings such as clinical care vs. community programs.

Conceptualization of outcomes: We conceptualize each of the outcomes from Proctor and colleagues' taxonomy of implementation outcomes for de-implementation research. First, we suggest key considerations for researchers assessing de-implementation outcomes, such as considering how the cultural or historical significance to the practice may impact de-implementation success and, as others have stated, the importance of the patient in driving healthcare overuse. Second, we conceptualize de-implementation outcomes, paying attention to a number of factors such as the importance of measuring outcomes not only of the targeted practice but of the de-implementation process as well. Also, the degree to which a practice should be de-implemented must be distinguished, as well as if there are thresholds that certain outcomes must reach before action is taken. We include a number of examples across all outcomes, both from clinical and community settings, to demonstrate the importance of these considerations. We also discuss how the concepts of health disparities, cultural or community relevance, and altruism impact the assessment of de-implementation outcomes.

Conclusion: We conceptualized existing implementation outcomes within the context of de-implementation, noted where there are similarities and differences to implementation research, and recommended a clear distinction between the target for de-implementation and the strategies used to promote de-implementation. This critical analysis can serve as a building block for others working to understand de-implementation processes and de-implement practices in real-world settings.

Keywords: De-adoption; De-implementation; Measurement; Methods; Outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s) 2020.

References

    1. Norton WE, Kennedy AE, Chambers DA. Studying de-implementation in health: an analysis of funded research grants. Implemesnt Sci. 2017.
    1. Niven DJ, Mrklas KJ, Holodinsky JK, Straus SE, Hemmelgarn BR, Jeffs LP, et al. Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2015.
    1. Van Bodegom-Vos L, Davidoff F, Marang-Van De Mheen PJ. Implementation and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin? BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:495–501. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005473.
    1. Prasad V, Ioannidis JPA. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci. 2014;9.
    1. Morgan DJ, Leppin AL, Smith CD, Korenstein D. A practical framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse: conceptualizing overuse through the patient-clinician interaction. J Hosp Med. 2017.
    1. McKay VR, Morshed AB, Brownson RC, Proctor EK, Prusaczyk B. Letting go: conceptualizing intervention de-implementation in public health and social service settings. Implement Sci. .
    1. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA - J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012.
    1. Verkerk EW, Tanke MAC, Kool RB, van Dulmen SA, Westert GP. Limit, lean or listen? A typology of low-value care that gives direction in de-implementation. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2018.
    1. Johns DM, Bayer R, Fairchild AL. Evidence and the politics of deimplementation: the rise and decline of the “counseling and testing” paradigm for HIV prevention at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Milbank Q. 2016.
    1. Montini T, Graham ID. “Entrenched practices and other biases”: unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation. Implement Sci. 2015;.
    1. Wang V, Maciejewski ML, Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ. Working smarter not harder: coupling implementation to de-implementation. Healthcare. 2018.
    1. Upvall MJ, Bourgault AM. De-implementation: a concept analysis. Nurs. Forum. 2018.
    1. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Heal [Internet]. George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. ekp@wustl.edu; 2011;38:65–76. Available from: .
    1. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;.
    1. Ellen ME, Wilson MG, Vélez M, Shach R, Lavis JN, Grimshaw JM, et al. Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis. Heal. Res. Policy Syst. 2018.
    1. Braveman P. What are health disparities and health equity? We need to be clear. Public Health Rep. 2017;.
    1. CDC. CDC Health disparities and inequalities report - United States. MMWR. 2013.
    1. Armstrong K, Ravenell KL, McMurphy S, Putt M. Racial/ethnic differences in physician distrust in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2007;.
    1. Colla CH, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Schpero WL, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely: prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;.
    1. Schpero WL, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB, Gottlieb DJ, Colla CH. Datawatch: for selected services, blacks and Hispanics more likely to receive low-value care than whites. Health Aff. 2017;.
    1. Sigman-Grant M, Christiansen E, Fernandez G, Fletcher J, Johnson SL, Branen LJ, et al. Hungry Mondays: low-income children in childcare. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2008;.
    1. Swindle TM, Ward WL, Bokony P, Whiteside-Mansell L. A Cross-Sectional Study of Early Childhood Educators’ Childhood and Current Food Insecurity and Dietary Intake. J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2018;.
    1. Swindle TM, Patterson Z, Boden CJ. A qualitative application of the belsky model to explore early care and education teachers’ mealtime history, beliefs, and interactions. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2017;.
    1. McKee MD, Baquero M, Anderson MR, Alvarez A, Karasz A. Vaginal douching among Latinas: practices and meaning. Matern Child Health J. 2009;.
    1. Cottrell BH. Vaginal douching. Neonatal Nurs: J. Obstet. Gynecol; 2003.
    1. De La Cruz N, Cornish DL, McCree-Hale R, Annang L, Grimley DM. Attitudes and sociocultural factors influencing vaginal douching behavior among English-speaking Latinas. Am J Health Behav. 2009;.
    1. Riggs KR, Ubel PA, Saloner B. Can appealing to patient altruism reduce overuse of health care services? An experimental survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;.
    1. Brett AS, McCullough LB. Addressing requests by patients for nonbeneficial interventions. JAMA - J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012.
    1. Schleifer D, Rothman DJ. “The ultimate decision is yours”: exploring patients’ attitudes about the overuse of medical interventions. PLoS One. 2012;7.
    1. Kotwani A, Wattal C, Katewa S, Joshic PC, Holloway K. Factors influencing primary care physicians to prescribe antibiotics in Delhi India. Fam Pract. 2010;.
    1. Teixeira Rodrigues A, Roque F, Falcão A, Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT. Understanding physician antibiotic prescribing behaviour: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2013.
    1. Gershoff ET, Font SA. Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Soc Policy Rep. 2016;.
    1. Whitaker A, Losen DJ. The striking outlier: the persistent, painful and problematic practice of corporal punishment in schools. 2019.
    1. Moscovice I, Stensland J. Rural hospitals: trends, challenges, and. a future research and policy analysis agenda. J Rural Heal. 2008;.
    1. Stensland J, Brasure M, Moscovice I. Why do rural primary care physicians sell their practices? J Rural Heal. 2008;.
    1. Patel MR, Peterson ED, Dai D, Brennan JM, Redberg RF, Anderson HV, et al. Low diagnostic yield of elective coronary angiography. N Engl J Med. 2010;.
    1. Patel MR, Bailey SR, Bonow RO, Chambers CE, Chan PS, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;.
    1. MacLean CH, Kerr EA, Qaseem A. Time out — charting a path for improving performance measurement. N Engl J Med. 2018;.
    1. Martin SL, Ashley OS, White LB, Axelson S, Clark M, Burrus B. Incorporating trauma-informed care into school-based programs. J Sch Health. 2017;.
    1. Langley A, Santiago CD, Rodríguez A, Zelaya J. Improving implementation of mental health services for trauma in multicultural elementary schools: Stakeholder perspectives on parent and educator engagement. J Behav Heal Serv Res. 2013;.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir