重新思考脱衣舞:在初级保健中取消低价值的做法。

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Katrina E Donahue, Marcella H Boynton, Jennifer Leeman, Jennifer Rees, Erica Richman, Kathleen Mottus, Lisa P Spees, Maihan B Vu, April B Reese, Hazel Tapp, Adam Lee, Asia Johnson, Rebecca J Cleveland, Laura A Young
{"title":"重新思考脱衣舞:在初级保健中取消低价值的做法。","authors":"Katrina E Donahue, Marcella H Boynton, Jennifer Leeman, Jennifer Rees, Erica Richman, Kathleen Mottus, Lisa P Spees, Maihan B Vu, April B Reese, Hazel Tapp, Adam Lee, Asia Johnson, Rebecca J Cleveland, Laura A Young","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02781-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a low value health care practice that does not benefit most patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This paper evaluates Re-Think the Strip (RTS), a multi-component study aimed at de-implementing SMBG among non-insulin treated T2DM patients in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a pre-post design to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of Re-Think the Strip in 20 primary care clinics with a comparison group of 34 clinics within one health system. De-implementation strategies were implemented over 12 months and practices were followed for 18 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was an overall decrease in the odds of receiving a prescription for diabetes testing supplies (i.e., test strips and/or lancets) between the baseline and 12-month intervention follow-up for intervention and comparison clinics (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94, 0.98). However, there was no statistically significant difference in prescribing between the intervention and comparison clinics. In sensitivity analyses, a small intervention effect was observed for those patients newly diagnosed with T2DM or newly assigned to a study clinic (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95, 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>De-implementation strategies are feasible in primary care practices. Although prescriptions for SMBG decreased in intervention practices, they also decreased in the comparison practices. Newly diagnosed patients or new patients may be more receptive to de-implementation. Other factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and baseline prescribing rates may have limited the effectiveness of the RTS de-implementation strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969945/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-Think the Strip: de-implementing a low value practice in primary care.\",\"authors\":\"Katrina E Donahue, Marcella H Boynton, Jennifer Leeman, Jennifer Rees, Erica Richman, Kathleen Mottus, Lisa P Spees, Maihan B Vu, April B Reese, Hazel Tapp, Adam Lee, Asia Johnson, Rebecca J Cleveland, Laura A Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-025-02781-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a low value health care practice that does not benefit most patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This paper evaluates Re-Think the Strip (RTS), a multi-component study aimed at de-implementing SMBG among non-insulin treated T2DM patients in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a pre-post design to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of Re-Think the Strip in 20 primary care clinics with a comparison group of 34 clinics within one health system. De-implementation strategies were implemented over 12 months and practices were followed for 18 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was an overall decrease in the odds of receiving a prescription for diabetes testing supplies (i.e., test strips and/or lancets) between the baseline and 12-month intervention follow-up for intervention and comparison clinics (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94, 0.98). However, there was no statistically significant difference in prescribing between the intervention and comparison clinics. In sensitivity analyses, a small intervention effect was observed for those patients newly diagnosed with T2DM or newly assigned to a study clinic (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95, 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>De-implementation strategies are feasible in primary care practices. Although prescriptions for SMBG decreased in intervention practices, they also decreased in the comparison practices. Newly diagnosed patients or new patients may be more receptive to de-implementation. Other factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and baseline prescribing rates may have limited the effectiveness of the RTS de-implementation strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969945/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02781-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02781-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自我血糖监测(SMBG)是一种低价值的医疗保健实践,不能使大多数非胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者受益。本文评估了Re-Think the Strip (RTS),这是一项多成分研究,旨在在初级保健中非胰岛素治疗的T2DM患者中取消SMBG。方法:本研究采用岗前设计来评估“重新思考条带”在20家初级保健诊所的有效性和实施情况,并与同一卫生系统内34家诊所的对照组进行比较。在12个月内实施了非执行战略,并在18个月内遵循了做法。结果:在基线和干预和比较诊所的12个月干预随访期间,接受糖尿病检测用品处方(即试纸和/或柳叶刀)的几率总体下降(or 0.96, 95% CI 0.94, 0.98)。然而,在干预和比较诊所之间的处方没有统计学上的显著差异。在敏感性分析中,对于那些新诊断为T2DM或新分配到研究诊所的患者,观察到较小的干预效果(or = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95, 1.00)。结论:去实施策略在初级保健实践中是可行的。虽然在干预实践中,SMBG的处方减少了,但在比较实践中,它们也减少了。新诊断的患者或新患者可能更容易接受去实施。包括COVID-19大流行和基线处方率在内的其他因素可能限制了RTS取消实施战略的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Re-Think the Strip: de-implementing a low value practice in primary care.

Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is a low value health care practice that does not benefit most patients with non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This paper evaluates Re-Think the Strip (RTS), a multi-component study aimed at de-implementing SMBG among non-insulin treated T2DM patients in primary care.

Methods: This study used a pre-post design to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of Re-Think the Strip in 20 primary care clinics with a comparison group of 34 clinics within one health system. De-implementation strategies were implemented over 12 months and practices were followed for 18 months.

Results: There was an overall decrease in the odds of receiving a prescription for diabetes testing supplies (i.e., test strips and/or lancets) between the baseline and 12-month intervention follow-up for intervention and comparison clinics (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94, 0.98). However, there was no statistically significant difference in prescribing between the intervention and comparison clinics. In sensitivity analyses, a small intervention effect was observed for those patients newly diagnosed with T2DM or newly assigned to a study clinic (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.95, 1.00).

Conclusions: De-implementation strategies are feasible in primary care practices. Although prescriptions for SMBG decreased in intervention practices, they also decreased in the comparison practices. Newly diagnosed patients or new patients may be more receptive to de-implementation. Other factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and baseline prescribing rates may have limited the effectiveness of the RTS de-implementation strategy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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