Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

Maratt JK, Kerr EA, Klamerus ML, Lohman SE, Froehlich W, Bhatia RS, Saini SD. Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review. Journal of general internal medicine. 2019 Sep 1; 34(9):1857-1864.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 09-213 – Medical Decision-Making Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

IMPORTANCE: Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured. OBJECTIVE: To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences. FINDINGS: A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N? = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N? = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.