Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence

Background
Strategies to improve the effectiveness and quality of health and care have predominantly emphasised the implementation of new research and evidence into service organisation and delivery. A parallel, but less understood issue is how clinicians and service leaders stop existing practices and interventions that are no longer evidence based, where new evidence supersedes old evidence, or interventions are replaced with those that are more cost effective. The aim of this evidence synthesis is to produce meaningful programme theory and practical guidance for policy makers, managers and clinicians to understand how and why de-implementation processes and procedures can work.

Methods and analysis
The synthesis will examine the attributes or characteristics that constitute the concept of de-implementation. The research team will then draw on the principles of realist inquiry to provide an explanatory account of how, in what context and for whom to explain the successful processes and impacts of de-implementation. The review will be conducted in four phases over 18 months. Phase 1: develop a framework to map the preliminary programme theories through an initial scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholders. Phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to develop the theories identified in phase 1. Phase 3: validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. Phase 4: formulating actionable recommendations for managers, commissioners and service leaders about what works through different approaches to de-implementation.

Discussion
This evidence synthesis will address gaps in knowledge about de-implementation across health and care services and ensure that guidance about strategies and approaches accounts for contextual factors, which may be operating at different organisational and decision-making levels. Through the development of the programme theory, which explains what works, how and under which circumstances, findings from the evidence synthesis will support managers and service leaders to make measured decisions about de-implementation.

Systematic review registration
PROSPERO CRD42017081030

1. Gnjidic D, Elshaug AG. De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing
low-value care terminology. BMC Med. 2015;13:273. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12916-015-0511-4.

2. Van Bodegom-Vos L, Davidoff F, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Implementation
and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin? BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;26:
495–501. Retrieved from: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2016/
08/10/bmjqs-2016-005473.abstract.

3. The School of Pharmacy University of London, Consortium TYHE. Evaluation
of the scale, causes and costs of waste medicines; 2010. p. 1–106.

4. Dolara A. Invitation to “slow medicine”. Ital Heart J Suppl. 2002;3(1):100–1.

5. ABIM Foundation. Choosing Wisely. 2012. Retrieved from: http://abimfoundation.org/what-we-do/choosing-wisely.

6. Bevan Commission. Simply Prudent Healthcare - achieving better care and
value for money in Wales – discussion paper. 2013. Retrieved from: http://
www.ctrtraining.co.uk/documents/
BevanCommissionSimplyPrudentHealthcarev104122013.pdf.

7. Niven DJ, Mrklas KL, Holodinsky JK, et al. Towards understanding the deadoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2015;
13:255 Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26444862.

8. Prasad V, Ioannidis JPA. Evidence-based, de-implementation for
contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci.
2014;9:1 Retrieved from: https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/
articles/10.1186/1748-5908-9-1.

9. Hahn EE, Munoz-Plaza CE, Wang J, et al. Working towards deimplementation: a mixed-methods study in breast cancer surveillance care.
J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2016;3:177–8.

10. Lindner RA. Choosing Wisely Australia: changing behaviour in health care.
Med J Aust. 2018;208(3):105–6. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.00723.

11. NHS Scotland (2016). Realistic medicine. Chief Medical Officer’s annual
report 2014–15. Retrieved from: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/004
92520.pdf.

12. Rooshenas L, Owen-Smith A, Hollingworth W, et al. “I won’t call it
rationing….”: an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory
and practice. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:273–81.

13. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006.
14. The RAMESES project. Quality standards for realist synthesis. 2014.
Retrieved from: http://www.ramesesproject.org/media/RS_qual_
standards_researchers.pdf.

15. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

16. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Ormston R, O’Connor W, Barnard M. Chapter 10
analysis: principles and processes. In Ritchie J, Lewis J, MCnaughton
Nicholls C, Ormston R. (2014). Qualitative research practice. London:
Sage. 269–345.

17. Davies H, Nutley S, Smith P. Introducing evidence-based policy and practice
in public services. In: What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in
public services. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2000. p. 1–11.

18. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson A, et al. Realist synthesis:
illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:33.

19. Burton C, Rycroft-Malone J, Williams L, et al. Managers’ use of nursing
workforce planning and deployment technologies: protocol for a realist
synthesis of implementation and impact. BMJ Open. 2016. https://doi.org/1
0.1136/bmjopen-2016-013645.

20. Williams L, Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, et al. Improving skills and care
standards in the support workforce for older people: a realist synthesis of
workforce development interventions. BMJ Open. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011964.

21. Meyer SB, Lunnay B. The application of abductive and retroductive
inference for the design and analysis of theory-driven sociological research.
Sociol Res Online. 2012;18(1):1–11. www.socresonline.org.uk/18/1/12.html.