Multicomponent processes to identify and prioritise low-value care in hospital settings: a scoping review
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 14, Issue: 4, Page: e078761
2024
- 6Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures6
- Readers6
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent News
Multicomponent processes to identify and prioritise low-value care in hospital settings: a scoping review
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY The current study reviewed evidence related to identification processes that extended beyond use of pre-existing list-based low-value care initiatives
Article Description
Objectives This scoping review mapped and synthesised original research that identified low-value care in hospital settings as part of multicomponent processes. Design Scoping review. Data sources Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL) and grey literature were last searched 11 July and 3 June 2022, respectively, with no language or date restrictions. Eligibility criteria We included original research targeting the identification and prioritisation of low-value care as part of a multicomponent process in hospital settings. Data extraction and synthesis Screening was conducted in duplicate. Data were extracted by one of six authors and checked by another author. A framework synthesis was conducted using seven areas of focus for the review and an overuse framework. Results Twenty-seven records were included (21 original studies, 4 abstracts and 2 reviews), originating from high-income countries. Benefit or value (11 records), risk or harm (10 records) were common concepts referred to in records that explicitly defined low-value care (25 records). Evidence of contextualisation including barriers and enablers of low-value care identification processes were identified (25 records). Common components of these processes included initial consensus, consultation, ranking exercise or list development (16 records), and reviews of evidence (16 records). Two records involved engagement of patients and three evaluated the outcomes of multicomponent processes. Five records referenced a theory, model or framework. Conclusions Gaps identified included applying systematic efforts to contextualise the identification of low-value care, involving people with lived experience of hospital care and initiatives in resource poor contexts. Insights were obtained regarding the theories, models and frameworks used to guide initiatives and ways in which the concept ‘low-value care’ had been used and reported. A priority for further research is evaluating the effect of initiatives that identify low-value care using contextualisation as part of multicomponent processes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85190488456&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078761; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38604625; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078761; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078761; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/4/e078761
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know