Relative importance and interactions of factors influencing low-value care provision: a factorial survey experiment among Swedish primary care physicians.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Marta Roczniewska, Hanna Augustsson, Sara Ingvarsson, Emma Hedberg Rundgren, Kamil Szymański, Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Per Nilsen, Henna Hasson
{"title":"Relative importance and interactions of factors influencing low-value care provision: a factorial survey experiment among Swedish primary care physicians.","authors":"Marta Roczniewska, Hanna Augustsson, Sara Ingvarsson, Emma Hedberg Rundgren, Kamil Szymański, Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Per Nilsen, Henna Hasson","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low-value care (LVC) describes practices that persist in healthcare, despite being ineffective, inefficient or causing harm. Several determinants for the provision of LVC have been identified, but understanding how these factors influence professionals' decisions, individually and jointly, is a necessary next step to guide deimplementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A factorial survey experiment was employed using vignettes that presented hypothetical medical scenarios among 593 Swedish primary care physicians. Each vignette varied systematically by factors such as patient age, patient request for the LVC, physician's perception of this practice, practice cost to the primary care centre and time taken to deliver it. For each scenario, we measured the reported likelihood of providing the LVC. We collected information on the physician's worry about missing a serious illness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient requests and physicians' positive perceptions of the practice were the factors that increased the reported likelihood of providing LVC the most (by 14 and 13 percentage points (pp), respectively). When the LVC was low in cost or not time-consuming, patient requests further boosted the likelihood of provision by 29 and 18 pp. In contrast, credible evidence against the LVC reduced the role of patient requests by 11 pp. Physicians' fear of missing a serious illness was linked with higher reported probability of providing LVC, and the credibility of the evidence against the LVC reduced the role of this concern.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings highlight that patient requests enhance the role of many determinants, while the credibility of evidence diminishes the impact of others. Overall, these findings point to the relevance of increased clinician knowledge about LVC, tools for patient communication and the use of decision support tools to reduce the uncertainty in decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018045","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low-value care (LVC) describes practices that persist in healthcare, despite being ineffective, inefficient or causing harm. Several determinants for the provision of LVC have been identified, but understanding how these factors influence professionals' decisions, individually and jointly, is a necessary next step to guide deimplementation.

Methods: A factorial survey experiment was employed using vignettes that presented hypothetical medical scenarios among 593 Swedish primary care physicians. Each vignette varied systematically by factors such as patient age, patient request for the LVC, physician's perception of this practice, practice cost to the primary care centre and time taken to deliver it. For each scenario, we measured the reported likelihood of providing the LVC. We collected information on the physician's worry about missing a serious illness.

Results: Patient requests and physicians' positive perceptions of the practice were the factors that increased the reported likelihood of providing LVC the most (by 14 and 13 percentage points (pp), respectively). When the LVC was low in cost or not time-consuming, patient requests further boosted the likelihood of provision by 29 and 18 pp. In contrast, credible evidence against the LVC reduced the role of patient requests by 11 pp. Physicians' fear of missing a serious illness was linked with higher reported probability of providing LVC, and the credibility of the evidence against the LVC reduced the role of this concern.

Conclusions: The findings highlight that patient requests enhance the role of many determinants, while the credibility of evidence diminishes the impact of others. Overall, these findings point to the relevance of increased clinician knowledge about LVC, tools for patient communication and the use of decision support tools to reduce the uncertainty in decision-making.

影响低价值护理提供的因素的相对重要性和相互作用:瑞典初级保健医生的析因调查实验。
背景:低价值护理(LVC)描述了在医疗保健中持续存在的做法,尽管无效、低效或造成伤害。已经确定了提供LVC的几个决定因素,但了解这些因素如何单独和共同影响专业人员的决策,是指导实施的必要下一步。方法:在593名瑞典初级保健医生中采用了一个因子调查实验,使用小插图提出了假设的医疗场景。每个小插曲系统地根据患者年龄、患者对LVC的要求、医生对这种做法的看法、初级保健中心的实践成本和交付时间等因素而变化。对于每个场景,我们测量了提供LVC的报告可能性。我们收集了医生担心错过重病的信息。结果:患者的要求和医生对实践的积极看法是报告中提供LVC可能性增加最多的因素(分别增加14和13个百分点)。当LVC成本较低或不耗时时,患者请求进一步提高了提供LVC的可能性,分别提高了29和18页。相反,反对LVC的可信证据使患者请求的作用降低了11页。医生对错过严重疾病的恐惧与提供LVC的较高可能性相关,而反对LVC的证据的可信度降低了这种担忧的作用。结论:研究结果强调,患者的要求增强了许多决定因素的作用,而证据的可信度降低了其他因素的影响。总的来说,这些发现表明,临床医生对LVC的了解增加,患者沟通工具的使用以及决策支持工具的使用减少了决策的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信