Strategies for reducing regional variation in the use of surgery: A systematic review

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 259, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 616-627

  Reames, Bradley N ^a,b   Shubeck, Sarah P ^b   Birkmeyer, John D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements; geographic variation; health services research; regional variation; shared decision making and decision aids

Indexed keywords

BREAST SURGERY; CANCER SURGERY; CONSENSUS; EAR SURGERY; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NOSE SURGERY; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY CONTROL; REGIONAL VARIATION; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THROAT SURGERY; TONSILLECTOMY; TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION;

CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCES AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84896752557     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000248     Document Type: Review

References (74)

1. Wennberg J, Gittelsohn J. Small area variations in health care delivery. Science. 1973;182:1102-1108
2. McPherson K,Wennberg JE, Hovind OB, et al. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: An international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:1310-1314
3. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Veum J, et al. Geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1102- 1107
4. Widmer M, Matter P, Staub L, et al. Regional variation in orthopedic surgery in Switzerland. Health Place. 2009;15:791-798
5. Dartmouth Atlas Project Database [database online]. The Dartmouth Institute or Health Policy and Clinical Practice; 1996-2010. Available at: Http://www.dartmouthatlas.org. Accessed September 24, 2013
6. Wennberg JE, Brownlee S, Fisher ES, et al. Improving quality and curbing health care spending: Opportunities for the Congress and the Obama Administration. A Dartmouth Atlas White Paper. 2008;1-18
7. Wennberg JE, Fowler FJ, Jr. A test of consumer contribution to small area variations in health care delivery. J Maine Med Assoc. 1977;68:275- 279
8. Wennberg JE. Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3:6-32
9. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, Lehmann M, et al. Impact of a clinical guidelines program for breast and colon cancer in a French cancer center. JAMA. 1997;278:1591-1595
10. Vayda E. A comparison of surgical rates in Canada and in England andWales. N Engl J Med. 1973;289:1224-1229
11. Eddy DM. Variations in physician practice: The role of uncertainty. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3:74-89
12. Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986;76:766- 772
13. Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM. Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1097-101
14. Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Geography and the debate overMedicare reform. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;Suppl Web Exclusives:W96-W114
15. Arterburn D, Wellman R, Westbrook E, et al. Introducing decision aids at Group Health was linked to sharply lower hip and knee surgery rates and costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:2094-2104
16. A Dartmouth Atlas Project Topic Brief: Preference Sensitive Care. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care; 2007. Available at: Http://www. dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/preference-sensitive.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2013
17. Weinstein JN, Clay K, Morgan TS. Informed patient choice: Patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits. Health Aff. 2007;26:726-730
18. O'Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, et al. Toward the "tipping point": Decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff. 2007;26:716-725
19. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, et al. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146
20. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD001431
21. Korst LM, Gregory KD, Fridman M, et al. Nonclinical factors affecting women's access to trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38:193-216
22. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, et al. Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;6:CD005528
23. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37-46
24. Banerjee M, Capozzoli M, Sweeney M L, et al. Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Can J Stat. 1999;27:3-23
25. Higgins JPT, Green S. eds. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking metaanalyses: Introduction - When not to use meta-analyses in a review [Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions web site]. 2011. Available at: Http://handbook.cochrane.org./ Accessed December 28, 2012
26. Higgins JPT. Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37:1158-1160
27. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2003;22:2113-2126
28. Higgins JPT, Green S. eds. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases: Recommendations on testing for funnel plot asymmetry [Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions web site]. 2011. Available at: Http: //handbook.cochrane.org./ Accessed July 22, 2013
29. Higgins JPT, Green S. eds. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies [Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions web site]. 2011. Available at: Http://handbook.cochrane.org./ Accessed March 1, 2013
30. Wells GA, D O'Connell BS, Peterson J, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2011. Available at: Http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed December 28, 2012
31. Higgins JPT GS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011. Available at: Http://handbook.cochrane.org./ Accessed December 28, 2012
32. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535- b2535
33. Stroup DF, Berlin JA,Morton SC, et al.Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012
34. Morgan MW,Deber RB, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease. J Gen InternMed. 2000;15:685-693
35. Murray E, Davis H, Tai SS, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ. 2001;323:493-496
36. Phelan EA, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, et al. Helping patients decide about back surgery: A randomized trial of an interactive video program. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:206-211; discussion 212
37. Tataru D, Robinson D, Moller H, et al. Trends in the treatment of breast cancer in Southeast England following the introduction of national guidelines. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006;28:215-217
38. Wennberg JE, Blowers L, Parker R, et al. Changes in tonsillectomy rates associated with feedback and review. Pediatrics. 1977;59:821-826
39. Keller RB, Soule DN, Wennberg JE, et al. Dealing with geographic variations in the use of hospitals. The experience of the Maine Medical Assessment Foundation Orthopaedic Study Group. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1286- 1293
40. Black N, Hutchings A. Reduction in the use of surgery for glue ear: Did national guidelines have an impact Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:121-124
41. Mason J, Freemantle N, Browning G. Impact of effective health care bulletin on treatment of persistent glue ear in children: Time series analysis. BMJ. 2001;323:1096-1097
42. Brownell M. Tonsillectomy rates for Manitoba children: Temporal and spatial variations. Healthc Manage Forum. 2002;Suppl:21-26
43. Rob MI, Westbrook JI, Taylor R, et al. Increased rates of ENT surgery among young children: Have clinical guidelines made a difference J Paediatr Child Health. 2004;40:627-632
44. Sherman CR, Potosky AL, Weis KA, et al. The Consensus Development Program. Detecting changes in medical practice following a consensus conference on the treatment of prostate cancer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8:683-693
45. Du X, Freeman DH, Jr, Syblik DA. What drove changes in the use of breast conserving surgery since the early 1980s The role of the clinical trial, celebrity action and an NIH consensus statement. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;62:71-
46. Fukuda H, Imanaka Y, Ishizaki T, et al. Change in clinical practice after publication of guidelines on breast cancer treatment. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:372-378
47. Lazovich D, White E, Thomas DB, et al. Change in the use of breast-conserving surgery in western Washington after the 1990 NIH Consensus Development Conference. Arch Surg. 1997;132:418-423
48. Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:628-637
49. Nattinger AB, Hoffmann RG, Kneusel RT, et al. Relation between appropriateness of primary therapy for early-stage breast carcinoma and increased use of breast-conserving surgery. Lancet. 2000;356:1148-1153
50. Struikmans H, Aarts MJ, Jobsen JJ, et al. An increased utilisation rate and better compliance to guidelines for primary radiotherapy for breast cancer from 1997 till 2008: A population-based study in the Netherlands. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100:320-325
51. Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Brook RH. Changing practice patterns in the management of primary breast cancer: Consensus Development Program. Health Serv Res. 1990;25:809-823
52. Auvinen A, Hakama M, Ala-Opas M, et al. A randomized trial of choice of treatment in prostate cancer: The effect of intervention on the treatment chosen. BJU Int. 2004;93:52-56; discussion
53. Kennedy AD, Sculpher MJ, Coulter A, et al. Effects of decision aids for menorrhagia on treatment choices, health outcomes, and costs: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2701-2708
54. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Weinstein J, et al. Involving patients in clinical decisions: Impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery. Med Care. 2000;38:959-969
55. Bernstein SJ, Skarupski KA, Grayson CE, et al. A randomized controlled trial of information-giving to patients referred for coronary angiography: Effects on outcomes of care. Health Expect. 1998;1:50-61
56. Schwartz MD, Valdimarsdottir HB, DeMarco TA, et al. Randomized trial of a decision aid for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: Impact on measures of decision making and satisfaction. Health Psychol. 2009;28: 11-19
57. Tiller K, Meiser B, Gaff C, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:360-372
58. Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, et al. Effectiveness of a computerized decision aid in primary care on decision making and quality of life in menorrhagia: Results of theMENTIP randomized controlled trial. Med DecisMaking. 2007;27:575-584
59. Vuorma S, Teperi J, Aalto AM, et al. A randomized trial among women with heavy menstruation - impact of a decision aid on treatment outcomes and costs. Health Expect. 2004;7:327-337
60. Molenaar S, Sprangers MA, Rutgers EJ, et al. Decision support for patients with early-stage breast cancer: Effects of an interactive breast cancer CDROM on treatment decision, satisfaction, and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1676-1687
61. Street RL, Jr, Voigt B, Geyer C, Jr, et al. Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer. 1995;76:2275-2285
62. Vodermaier A, Caspari C, Koehm J, et al. Contextual factors in shared decision making: A randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:590-597
63. Whelan T, Levine M, Gafni A, et al. Mastectomy or lumpectomy Helping women make informed choices. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1727-1735
64. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, et al. Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292:435-441
65. Wagner EH, Barrett P, Barry MJ, et al. The effect of a shared decision making program on rates of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pilot results. Med Care. 1995;33:765-770
66. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 1993;342:1317-1322
67. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines II: Ensuring guidelines change medical practice. Qual Health Care. 1994;3: 45-52
68. Giguere A, Legare F, Grimshaw J, et al. Printed educational materials: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004398
69. Russell IT GJ. The effectiveness of referral guidelines: A review of themethods and findings of published evaluations. In:Roland MCA, ed. Hospital Referrals. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992:179-211
70. Andrews EJ, Redmond HP. A review of clinical guidelines. Br J Surg. 2004;91:956-964
71. GrimshawJM, Thomas RE,MacLennanG, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii-iv, 1-72
72. Knops AM, Legemate DA, Goossens A, et al. Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: A systematic review andmeta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2013;257:860-866
73. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: A conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7: 149-158
74. Helfrich CD, Damschroder LJ, Hagedorn HJ, et al. A critical synthesis of literature on the promoting action on research implementation in health services (PARIHS) framework. Implement Sci. 2010;5:82