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

Journal article


Burton, C., Williams, L., Bucknall, T., Edwards, S., Fisher, D., Hall, B., Harris, G., Jones, P., Makin, M., McBride, A., Meacock, R., Parkinson, J., Rycroft-Malone, J. and Waring, J. 2019. Understanding how and why de-implementation works in health and care: research protocol for a realist synthesis of evidence. Systematic Reviews. 8 (194).
AuthorsBurton, C., Williams, L., Bucknall, T., Edwards, S., Fisher, D., Hall, B., Harris, G., Jones, P., Makin, M., McBride, A., Meacock, R., Parkinson, J., Rycroft-Malone, J. and Waring, J.
Abstract

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

KeywordsDe-implementation; Low-value practice; Overuse; Health services; Concept analysis; Realist synthesis
Year2019
JournalSystematic Reviews
Journal citation8 (194)
PublisherSpringer Nature
ISSN2046-4053
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)doi:doi.org10.1186/s13643-019-1111-8
Official URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1111-8
Related URLhttps://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/
FunderNational Institute for Health Research
Publication dates
Online05 Aug 2019
Publication process dates
Accepted22 Jul 2019
Deposited22 May 2020
References

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.

Permalink -

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/item/8v909/understanding-how-and-why-de-implementation-works-in-health-and-care-research-protocol-for-a-realist-synthesis-of-evidence

  • 0
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

'Function first—be active, stay independent’—Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care: a protocol for a realist synthesis with embedded co-production and co-design
Law, R-J, Williams, L., Langley, J., Burton, C., Hall, B., Hiscock, J., Morrison, V., Lemmey, A., Partridge, R., Lovell-Smith, C., Gallanders, J. and Williams, N. 2020. 'Function first—be active, stay independent’—Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions by primary care: a protocol for a realist synthesis with embedded co-production and co-design. BMJ Open. 10 (2).
What works for whom in the management of diabetes in people living with dementia: a realist review
Bunn, F., Goodman, C., Jones, P. R., Russell, B., Trivedi, D., Sinclair, A., Bayer, A., Rait, G., Rycroft-Malone, J. and Burton, C. 2017. What works for whom in the management of diabetes in people living with dementia: a realist review. BMC Medicine. 15 (141).
Managing diabetes in people with dementia: protocol for a realist review
Bunn, F., Goodman, C., Rycroft Malone, J., Reece Jones, P., Burton, C., Rait, G., Trivedi, D., Bayer, A. and Sinclair, A. 2016. Managing diabetes in people with dementia: protocol for a realist review. Systematic Reviews. 5 (5).
Collaboration and co-production knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges
Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C.R., Bucknall , T., Graham, I.D., Hutchinson, A. and Stacey, D. 2016. Collaboration and co-production knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 5 (4), pp. 221-223.
Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare
Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C.R., Wilkinson, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Baker, R., Dopson, S., Graham, I.D., Staniszewska, S., Thompson, C., Ariss, S., Melville-Richards, L. and Williams , L. 2016. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implementation Science : IS. 11 (17).
An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke-related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation
Sackley, C.M., Walker, M.F., Burton, C.R., Watkins,C.L, Mant, J., Roalfe, A.K., Wheatley, K., Sheehan, B., Sharp, L., Stant, K.E., Fletcher-Smith, J., Steel, K., Barton, G.R., Irvine, L. and Peryer, G. 2016. An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke-related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment. 20 (15).
Collective Action for Knowledge Mobilisation: a Realist Evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care
Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C., Wilkinson, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Baker, R., Dopson, S., Graham, I., Staniszewska, S., Thompson, C., Ariss, S., Melville-Richards, L. and Williams, L. 2015. Collective Action for Knowledge Mobilisation: a Realist Evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. UK NIHR Journals Library. doi:10.3310/hsdr03440
An untapped resource: patient and public involvement in implementation comment on "Knowledge mobilization in healthcare organizations": a view from the resource-based view of the firm
Burton, C. and Rycroft-Malone, J. 2015. An untapped resource: patient and public involvement in implementation comment on "Knowledge mobilization in healthcare organizations": a view from the resource-based view of the firm. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 4 (12), pp. 845-847.
What is rehabilitation potential? Development of a theoretical model through the accounts of healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation services
Burton, C.R., Horne, M., Woodward-Nutt, K., Bowen, A. and Tyrrell, P. 2014. What is rehabilitation potential? Development of a theoretical model through the accounts of healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation services. Disability and Rehabilitation. 37 (21), pp. 1955-1960.