临床指导的默认推动在减少医疗保健中过度使用测试和治疗方面的有效性:随机对照试验的系统综述。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gemma Altinger, Caitlin M P Jones, Giovanni E Ferreira, Jason Soon, Tammy C Hoffmann, Christopher Maher, Rui Chang, Jeffrey A Linder, Adrian Traeger
{"title":"临床指导的默认推动在减少医疗保健中过度使用测试和治疗方面的有效性:随机对照试验的系统综述。","authors":"Gemma Altinger, Caitlin M P Jones, Giovanni E Ferreira, Jason Soon, Tammy C Hoffmann, Christopher Maher, Rui Chang, Jeffrey A Linder, Adrian Traeger","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of clinician-directed default nudges for reducing overuse of tests and treatments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials examining the effect of clinician-directed default nudges on overuse of tests or treatments, measured as a proportion of encounters or patients. Four databases and three clinical trial registries were searched up to 13 January 2025. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane guidance. Because there was high clinical heterogeneity, we used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines for our overall analysis. A secondary exploratory meta-analysis was performed on a subgroup of default nudge interventions targeting opioid prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included six trials (five cluster randomised trials and one patient randomised trial, n=767 to 21 331). Trials targeted overuse of opioids, antibiotics, high-risk medicines for older patients and imaging during palliative radiotherapy. Lowering default quantities of opioids may cause reductions in opioid overuse, but on one occasion increased overuse. It is unclear if opt-out defaults reduce antibiotic overuse in patients with sepsis eligible for de-escalation or if lowering default doses reduce overuse of high-risk medications in older patients. Reducing the default frequency of imaging probably causes large reductions in unnecessary imaging in people receiving palliative radiotherapy. A subgroup meta-analysis was only possible on one type of default for opioids. A 10-tablet default may reduce overuse of large packs of opioids (risk difference=-14.3%, 95% CI -51.4% to +22.9%, 3 trials, 18 186 encounters, very low certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinician-directed default nudges had inconsistent effects on overuse of healthcare, with limited and mostly low certainty evidence. High-quality trials are essential to determine whether default nudges reduce overuse or improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>42024516423.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of clinician-directed default nudges on reducing overuse of tests and treatments in healthcare: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Gemma Altinger, Caitlin M P Jones, Giovanni E Ferreira, Jason Soon, Tammy C Hoffmann, Christopher Maher, Rui Chang, Jeffrey A Linder, Adrian Traeger\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of clinician-directed default nudges for reducing overuse of tests and treatments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials examining the effect of clinician-directed default nudges on overuse of tests or treatments, measured as a proportion of encounters or patients. Four databases and three clinical trial registries were searched up to 13 January 2025. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane guidance. Because there was high clinical heterogeneity, we used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines for our overall analysis. A secondary exploratory meta-analysis was performed on a subgroup of default nudge interventions targeting opioid prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included six trials (five cluster randomised trials and one patient randomised trial, n=767 to 21 331). Trials targeted overuse of opioids, antibiotics, high-risk medicines for older patients and imaging during palliative radiotherapy. Lowering default quantities of opioids may cause reductions in opioid overuse, but on one occasion increased overuse. It is unclear if opt-out defaults reduce antibiotic overuse in patients with sepsis eligible for de-escalation or if lowering default doses reduce overuse of high-risk medications in older patients. Reducing the default frequency of imaging probably causes large reductions in unnecessary imaging in people receiving palliative radiotherapy. A subgroup meta-analysis was only possible on one type of default for opioids. A 10-tablet default may reduce overuse of large packs of opioids (risk difference=-14.3%, 95% CI -51.4% to +22.9%, 3 trials, 18 186 encounters, very low certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Clinician-directed default nudges had inconsistent effects on overuse of healthcare, with limited and mostly low certainty evidence. High-quality trials are essential to determine whether default nudges reduce overuse or improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>42024516423.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"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-2025-018793\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-018793","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

摘要

目的:评价临床指导默认轻推减少过度使用的测试和治疗的有效性。设计:进行了一项系统综述,以综合随机对照试验的证据,这些试验检验了临床医生指导的默认轻推对过度使用测试或治疗的影响,以接触者或患者的比例来衡量。截至2025年1月13日,检索了四个数据库和三个临床试验登记处。两位审稿人使用Cochrane指南筛选、提取数据、评估偏倚风险和证据确定性。由于存在较高的临床异质性,我们使用综合无荟萃分析指南进行总体分析。对阿片类药物处方的默认轻推干预亚组进行了二次探索性荟萃分析。结果:我们纳入了6项试验(5项集群随机试验和1项患者随机试验,n=767 ~ 21 331)。试验针对阿片类药物、抗生素、老年患者高危药物的过度使用以及姑息性放疗期间的影像学检查。降低阿片类药物的默认数量可能会导致阿片类药物过度使用的减少,但有时会增加过度使用。目前尚不清楚选择退出是否会减少败血症患者抗生素的过度使用,或者降低默认剂量是否会减少老年患者高风险药物的过度使用。在接受姑息性放射治疗的患者中,减少默认的成像频率可能会大大减少不必要的成像。亚组荟萃分析只可能针对阿片类药物的一种默认类型。默认10片可能会减少大包装阿片类药物的过度使用(风险差异=-14.3%,95% CI -51.4%至+22.9%,3项试验,18186次接触,非常低确定性证据)。结论:临床指导的默认轻推对医疗保健过度使用的影响不一致,证据有限且大多数是低确定性的。高质量的试验对于确定默认轻推是否减少过度使用或改善患者预后至关重要。普洛斯彼罗注册号:42024516423。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of clinician-directed default nudges on reducing overuse of tests and treatments in healthcare: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of clinician-directed default nudges for reducing overuse of tests and treatments.

Design: A systematic review was conducted to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials examining the effect of clinician-directed default nudges on overuse of tests or treatments, measured as a proportion of encounters or patients. Four databases and three clinical trial registries were searched up to 13 January 2025. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using Cochrane guidance. Because there was high clinical heterogeneity, we used the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines for our overall analysis. A secondary exploratory meta-analysis was performed on a subgroup of default nudge interventions targeting opioid prescriptions.

Results: We included six trials (five cluster randomised trials and one patient randomised trial, n=767 to 21 331). Trials targeted overuse of opioids, antibiotics, high-risk medicines for older patients and imaging during palliative radiotherapy. Lowering default quantities of opioids may cause reductions in opioid overuse, but on one occasion increased overuse. It is unclear if opt-out defaults reduce antibiotic overuse in patients with sepsis eligible for de-escalation or if lowering default doses reduce overuse of high-risk medications in older patients. Reducing the default frequency of imaging probably causes large reductions in unnecessary imaging in people receiving palliative radiotherapy. A subgroup meta-analysis was only possible on one type of default for opioids. A 10-tablet default may reduce overuse of large packs of opioids (risk difference=-14.3%, 95% CI -51.4% to +22.9%, 3 trials, 18 186 encounters, very low certainty evidence).

Conclusions: Clinician-directed default nudges had inconsistent effects on overuse of healthcare, with limited and mostly low certainty evidence. High-quality trials are essential to determine whether default nudges reduce overuse or improve patient outcomes.

Prospero registration number: 42024516423.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信