Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: Operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Harris, Claire ^a,b   Green, Sally ^a   Elshaug, Adam G ^c,d  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b SOUTHERN HEALTH   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d Lown Cardiovascular Group   (United States)

Author keywords

De adoption; Decision making; Decommissioning; Disinvestment; Framework; Prioritisation; Rationing; Reallocation; Reinvestment; Resource allocation

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; INVESTMENT; NOMENCLATURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; HUMANS; INVESTMENTS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 85018788298     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7     Document Type: Review

References (194)

1. Harris C, Green S, Ramsey W, Allen K, King R. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: Conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting BMC health services research. 2017;in press.
2. Harris C, Garrubba M, Allen K, King R, Kelly C, Thiagarajan M, et al. Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):575. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-1178-4.
3. Harris C, Green S, Ramsey W, Allen K, King R. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 1: introducing a series of papers reporting an investigation of disinvestment in a local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2210-7.
4. Harris C, Allen K, King R, Ramsey W, Green S. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: Reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting. BMC health services research. 2017;in press.
5. Harris C, Allen K, King R, Ramsey W, Kelly C, Thiagarajan M. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2211-6.
6. Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Brooke V. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2207-2.
7. Harris C, Ko H, Waller C, Sloss P, Williams P. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 4: exploring opportunities and methods for consumer engagement in resource allocation in a local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2212-5.
8. Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Green S, King R, Ramsey W, et al. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 5: developing a model for evidence-driven resource allocation in the local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2208-1.
9. Harris C, Allen K, Brooke V, Dyer T, Waller C, King R, et al. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2269-1.
10. Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Dyer T, Brooke V, Garrubba M, et al. Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting BMC health services research; 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2388-8.
11. Harris C, Garrubba M, Melder A, Voutier C, Waller C, King R et al. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: Developing, implementing and evaluating an Evidence Dissemination Service in a local healthcare setting. BMC health services research. 2017;in press.
12. Rycroft-Malone J, Bucknall TK, editors. Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: linking evidence to action. Evidence-based nursing. Chichester: UK Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
13. Boivin A, Lehoux P, Lacombe R, Burgers J, Grol R. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9:24. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-24.
14. Carter D, Watt AM, Braunack-Mayer A, Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Should there be a female age limit on public funding for assisted reproductive technology? J Bioethical Inq. 2013;10(1):79-91. doi: 10.1007/s11673-012-9415-6.
15. Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Moss JR, Buchan H, Wale J, et al. The ASTUTE health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-101.
16. Schmidt DE. The development of a disinvestment framework to guide resource allocation decisions in health service delivery organizations. The University of British Columbia 2010. Available from: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0073252. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
17. Lindstrom H, Waldau S. Ethically acceptable prioritisation of childless couples and treatment rationing: "accountability for reasonableness". Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139(2):176-86. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.02.018.
18. Hodgetts K, Hiller JE, Street JM, Carter D, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Watt AM, et al. Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:204. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-204.
19. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
20. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
21. Hollingworth W, Rooshenas L, Busby J, Hine CE, Badrinath P, Whiting PF et al. Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study. Southampton UK: Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015; 2015.
22. Niven DJ, Mrklas KJ, Holodinsky JK, Straus SE, Hemmelgarn BR, Jeffs LP, et al. Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2015;13:255. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0488-z.
23. Ilott I, Gerrish K, Laker S, Bray K. Naming and framing the problem: using theories, models and conceptual frameworks. Bridging the gap between knowledge and practice. Your starter for 10: no.2. Sheffield teaching hospital NHS foundation trust, National Institute for Health Research collaboration for leadership in applied Health Research and Care for South Yorkshire. 2013.
24. Polisena J, Clifford T, Elshaug AG, Mitton C, Russell E, Skidmore B. Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):174-84. doi: 10.1017/s0266462313000068.
25. Giovagnoni A, Bartolucci L, Manna A, Morbiducci J, Ascoli G. Health technology assessment: principles, methods and current status. Radiol Medica. 2009;114(5):673-91. doi: 10.1007/s11547-009-00387-5.
26. Daniels N, Sabin J. Accountability for reasonableness: an update. BMJ. 2008;337 doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1850.
27. Mitton C, Dionne F, Donaldson C. Managing healthcare budgets in times of austerity: the role of program budgeting and marginal analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(2):95-102. doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0074-5.
28. MacKean G, Noseworthy T, Elshaug AG, Leggett L, Littlejohns P, Berezanski J, et al. Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(04):418-23. doi:doi:10.1017/S0266462313000494
29. Leggett L, Noseworthy TW, Zarrabi M, Lorenzetti D, Sutherland LR, Clement FM. Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(3):220-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000438.
30. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, Martin DK. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:43. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-43.
31. Segal L, Mortimer D. A population-based model for priority setting across the care continuum and across modalities. Cost Effectiveness & Resource Allocation. 2006;4:6.
32. Hauck K, Smith P, Goddard M. The Economics of Priority Setting for Health Care: A Literature Review. Health, Nutrition and Population Discussion Paper World Bank 2004. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/HEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/Resources/281627-1095698140167/Chapter3Final.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
33. Department of Health. Medicare Benefits Schedule Review. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/mbsreviewtaskforce. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
34. Elshaug AG, Rosenthal MB, Lavis JN, Brownlee S, Schmidt H, Nagpal S, et al. Levers for addressing medical underuse and overuse: achieving high-value health care. Lancet. 2017; doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32586-7.
35. Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J. Guiding the process of health technology disinvestment. Health policy. 2010;98(2-3):218-26. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.06.018.
36. National Health Committee NZ. Business plan 2013/14-2015/16. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health; 2013.
37. Joshi NP SF, Noseworthy TW. Reassessment of health technologies: obsolescence and waste. 2009.
38. Bhatia RS, Levinson W, Shortt S, Pendrith C, Fric-Shamji E, Kallewaard M, et al. Measuring the effect of choosing wisely: an integrated framework to assess campaign impact on low-value care. BMJ quality & safety. 2015;24(8):523-31. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004070.
39. Barasa EW, Molyneux S, English M, Cleary S. Setting healthcare priorities at the macro and Meso levels: a framework for evaluation. International journal of health policy and management. 2015;4(11):719-32. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.167.
40. Centre for Clinical Effectiveness. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE): Evaluation and Research Plan. Southern Health 2009. Available from: https://figshare.com/articles/Sustainability-in-Healthcare-by-Allocating-Resources-Effectively-SHARE-Evaluation-and-Research-Plan/3979575. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
41. Harris C, Turner T, Wilkinson F. SEAchange: Guide to a pragmatic evidence-based approach to Sustainable, Effective and Appropriate change in health services. 2015. Available from: http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/1225377. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
42. Tanios N, Wagner M, Tony M, Baltussen R, van Til J, Rindress D, et al. Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(04):456-65. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000573
43. Rubinstein A, Belizan M, Discacciati V. Are economic evaluations and health technology assessments increasingly demanded in times of rationing health services? The case of the argentine financial crisis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):169-76. doi: 10.1017/s0266462307070274.
44. Gnjidic D, Elshaug AG. De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology. BMC Med. 2015;13:273. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0511-4.
45. Wolfson D, Santa J, Slass L. Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign. Acad Med. 2014;89(7):990-5. doi: 10.1097/acm.0000000000000270.
46. Rubenfeld GD. Cost-effective critical care: cost containment and rationing. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;33(4):413-20. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1322411.
47. Brody H. From an ethics of rationing to an ethics of waste avoidance. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1949-51. doi:doi:10.1056/NEJMp1203365
48. Marks L, Weatherly H, Mason A. Prioritizing investment in public health and health equity: what can commissioners do? Public Health. 2013;127(5):410-8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.027.
49. National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethical considerations relating to health care resource allocation decisions. Commonwealth of Australia 1993. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/publications/attachments/e24.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
50. Culyer A. Efficiency, equity and equality in health and health care. CHE Research Paper 120. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK, 2015.
51. Yost J, Dobbins M, Traynor R, DeCorby K, Workentine S, Greco L. Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:728. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-728.
52. Robert G, Harlock J, Williams I. Disentangling rhetoric and reality: an international Delphi study of factors and processes that facilitate the successful implementation of decisions to decommission healthcare services. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0123-y.
53. Smith N, Mitton C, Bryan S, Davidson A, Urquhart B, Gibson JL, et al. Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:247. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-247.
54. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e77404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077404.
55. Robinson S, Williams I, Dickinson H, Freeman T, Rumbold B. Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: evidence from the English experience. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2386-93. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.014.
56. Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S, Cornelissen E, MacLeod S. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:165. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-165.
57. Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens PJ, Crockett S. More than "using research": the real challenges in promoting evidence-informed decision-making. Healthc Policy. 2009;4(3):87-102.
58. Henshall C, Schuller T, Mardhani-Bayne L. Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment". Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(3):203-10. doi: 10.1017/s0266462312000372.
59. Rumbold B, Alakeson V, Smith P. Rationing health care. Quest for NHS Efficiency Series 2012. Available from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2017-01/rationing-health-care-web-final.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
60. Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4519.
61. Pearson S, Littlejohns P. Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for health and clinical excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(3):160-5.
62. Watt AM, Willis CD, Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. Engaging clinicians in evidence-based disinvestment: role and perceptions of evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(03):211-9. doi:doi:10.1017/S0266462312000402
63. Garner S, Docherty M, Somner J, Sharma T, Choudhury M, Clarke M, et al. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):6-12. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2012.012044.
64. Haas M, Hall J, Viney R, Gallego G. Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Aust Health Review. 2012;36(2):148-52. doi: 10.1071/AH11032.
65. Owens DK, Qaseem A, Chou R, Shekelle P. High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(3):174-80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-3-201102010-00007.
66. Chamberlain CA, Martin RM, Busby J, Gilbert R, Cahill DJ, Hollingworth W. Trends in procedures for infertility and caesarean sections: was NICE disinvestment guidance implemented? NICE recommendation reminders. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:112. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-112.
67. Duru OK, Ettner SL, Turk N, Mangione CM, Brown AF, Fu J, et al. Potential savings associated with drug substitution in Medicare part D: the translating research into action for diabetes (TRIAD) study. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(1):230-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2546-6.
68. Larmour I, Pignataro S, Barned KL, Mantas S, Korman MG. A therapeutic equivalence program: evidence-based promotion of more efficient use of medicines. Med J Aust. 2011;194(12):631-4.
69. Oyetunde OO, Aina BA, Tayo F. Impact of generic substitution practice on care of diabetic patients. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(3):623-9. doi: 10.1007/s11096-014-9946-5.
70. Saverno K, Gothe H, Schuessel K, Biskupiak J, Schulz M, Siebert U, et al. Consideration of international generic distribution policies on patient outcomes in the United States and Germany. Pharmazie. 2014;69(3):238-40.
71. Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC, Reynolds G. Testimonials do not convert patients from brand to generic medication. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(9):e314-31.
72. Parkinson B, Sermet C, Clement F, Crausaz S, Godman B, Garner S, et al. Disinvestment and value-based purchasing strategies for pharmaceuticals: an international review. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(9):905-24. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0293-8.
73. National Health Committee NZ. Think Piece. Towards a plan for better targeting of existing health services. 2012. Available from: http://thehub.superu.govt.nz/sites/default/files/43026-disinvestment-think-piece-sept2012-v2-0.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
74. Nuti S, Vainieri M, Bonini A. Disinvestment for re-allocation: a process to identify priorities in healthcare. Health Policy. 2010;95(2-3):137-43. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.11.011
75. Levinson W, Kallewaard M, Bhatia RS, Wolfson D, Shortt S, Kerr EA. 'choosing wisely': a growing international campaign. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(2):167-74. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003821.
76. Williams I, Robinson S, Dickinson H. Rationing in health care. The theory and practice of priority setting. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2012.
77. Hughes E, McKenny K. Decommissioning and disinvestment toolkit 2013-2014 Rayleigh. Essex: Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group; 2013.
78. Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J. Report on the development of the GuNFT guideline. Guideline for not funding existing health technologies in health care systems. Quality plan for the NHS of the MHSP: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba), 2009.
79. Rooshenas L, Owen-Smith A, Hollingworth W, Badrinath P, Beynon C, Donovan JL. "I won't call it rationing.": an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:273-81. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.020.
80. Daniels T, Williams I, Robinson S, Spence K. Tackling disinvestment in health care services. The views of resource allocators in the English NHS. J Health Organ Manag. 2013;27(6):762-80.
81. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Poder T, Witteman W. Effects and repercussions of local/hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3:129. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-129.
82. Mayer J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvesting from ineffective technologies: lessons learned from current programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015:1-8. doi: 10.1017/s0266462315000641.
83. Leggett L, MacKean G, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L, Clement F. Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: survey and key informant interviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012; doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-10-38.
84. Medical Benefits Reviews Task Group. Comprehensive Management Framework for the MBS. Commonwealth Department of Health, Australia. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Review-MBS-Items. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
85. Paprica PA, Culyer AJ, Elshaug AG, Peffer J, Sandoval GA. From talk to action: policy stakeholders, appropriateness, and selective disinvestment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(4):236-40. doi: 10.1017/s0266462315000392.
86. Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM, Lavis JN. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):179. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0179-8.
87. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.
88. Clarke MA, Belden JL, Koopman RJ, Steege LM, Moore JL, Canfield SM, et al. Information needs and information-seeking behaviour analysis of primary care physicians and nurses: a literature review. Health Inf Libr J. 2013;30(3):178-90. doi: 10.1111/hir.12036.
89. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-751.
90. Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers'perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220.
91. Moore G, Redman S, Haines M, Todd A. What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review. Evid Policy. 2011;7(3):277-305. doi: 10.1332/174426411X579199.
92. Solomons NM, Spross JA. Evidence-based practice barriers and facilitators from a continuous quality improvement perspective: an integrative review. J Nurs Manag. 2011;19(1):109-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01144.x.
93. Younger P. Internet-based information-seeking behaviour amongst doctors and nurses: a short review of the literature. Health Inf Libr J. 2010;27(1):2-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2010.00883.x.
94. Gifford W, Davies B, Edwards N, Griffin P, Lybanon V. Managerial leadership for nurses'use of research evidence: an integrative review of the literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4(3):126-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00095.x.
95. Gagliardi AR. "More bang for the buck": exploring optimal approaches for guideline implementation through interviews with international developers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:404. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-404.
96. Tricco AC, Cardoso R, Thomas SM, Motiwala S, Sullivan S, Kealey MR, et al. Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1.
97. Martelli N, Lelong AS, Prognon P, Pineau J. Hospital-based health technology assessment for innovative medical devices in university hospitals and the role of hospital pharmacists: learning from international experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):185-91. doi: 10.1017/s0266462313000019.
98. Gallego G. Hospital drug and therapeutics committees in Australia: is there a role for economic evaluation at the institutional level? Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(6):895-7. doi: 10.1007/s11096-011-9565-3.
99. Lourenco T, Grant A, Burr J, Vale L. Local decision-makers views'of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010;15(Suppl 2):3-11. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090.
100. Schumacher I, Zechmeister I. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment on the austrian healthcare system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(1):84-91. doi: 10.1017/s0266462312000748.
101. Schwartz AL, Landon BE, Elshaug AG, Chernew ME, McWilliams JM. Measuring low-value Care in Medicare. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1541.
102. Coronini-Cronberg S, Bixby H, Laverty AA, Wachter RM, Millett C. English National Health Service's savings plan may have helped reduce the use of three 'low-value'procedures. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(3):381-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0773.
103. Gallego G, Haas M, Hall J, Viney R. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions: an evidence check rapid review brokered by the sax institute for the NSW Treasury 2010. Available from: https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/21-Reducing-the-use-of-ineffective-health-care-interventions.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
104. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Geographic variations in health care. What do we know and what can be done to improve health system performance? OECD Health Policy Studies. 2014. doi: 10.1787/9789264216594-en.
105. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Exploring Healthcare Variation in Australia: Analyses Resulting from an OECD Study. ACSQHC 2014. Available from: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications/exploring-healthcare-variation-in-australia/. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
106. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Dartmouth Health Atlas. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
107. Health Quality and Safety Commission New Zealand. Atlas of Healthcare Variation. http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-programmes/health-quality-evaluation/projects/atlas-of-healthcare-variation/. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
108. National Health Service. NHS Atlas of Variation. http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
109. Elshaug A, Moss J, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin T, Hiller J. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190(5):269-73.
110. Duckett S, Breadon P, Romanes D, Fennessy P, Nolan J. Questionable care: Stopping ineffective treatments. Grattan Institute 2015. Available from: http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/828-Questionable-Care3.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
111. Nutley T, Reynolds HW. Improving the use of health data for health system strengthening. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:20001. doi: 10.3402/gha.v6i0.20001.
112. Nutley T. Improving data use in decision making: an intervention to strengthen health systems. 2012.
113. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1.
114. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 13: preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2009;7(1):1-9. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s13.
115. Lomas JCT, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Can Health Serv Res Found. 2005
116. Stafinski T, Menon D, McCabe C, Philippon DJ. To fund or not to fund: development of a decision-making framework for the coverage of new health technologies. PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(9):771-80. doi: 10.2165/11539840-000000000-00000.
117. Morden NE, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely - the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):589-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1314965.
118. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. 'Do Not Do' Recommendations. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, UK. http://www.nice.org.uk/savingsAndProductivity/collection?page=1&pageSize=2000&type=Do%20not%20do&published=&impact=Unclassified&filter=. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
119. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2014. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/tools-and-resources-for-better-preventive-care. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
120. HealthPACT. Disinvestment in Australia and New Zealand. Health Policy Advisory Committee on Technology 2013. Available from: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/healthpact/docs/papers/workshop/disinvestment-report.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
121. Audit Commission. Reducing spending on low clinical value treatments. London: Health Briefing; 2011.
122. Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.476.
123. Qaseem A, Alguire P, Dallas P, Feinberg LE, Fitzgerald FT, Horwitch C, et al. Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(2):147-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-2-201201170-00011.
124. Prasad V, Vandross A, Toomey C, Cheung M, Rho J, Quinn S, et al. A decade of reversal: an analysis of 146 contradicted medical practices. Mayo Clin Proc Mayo Clin. 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.05.012.
125. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(10):556-60.
126. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294(2):218-28. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.2.218.
127. Admon AJ, Cooke CR. Will choosing wisely(R) improve quality and lower costs of Care for Patients with critical illness? Ann Am Thor Soc. 2014; doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201403-093OI.
128. Blumenthal-Barby JS. "Choosing wisely" to reduce low-value care: a conceptual and ethical analysis. J Med Philos. 2013;38(5):559-80. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jht042.
129. Elshaug AG, McWilliams J, Landon BE. The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013;309(8):775-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.828.
130. Elshaug AG. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Reply. Med J Aust. 2013;198(11):597-8.
131. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Davidson A, Reid RC, Hole R, Visockas AM, et al. Changing priority setting practice: the role of implementation in practice change. Health Policy. 2014; doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.010.
132. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD Health Project: Health Technologies and Decision Making. OECD Publishing 2005. Available from: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and-technology/health-technologies-and-decision-making-9789264016224-en#page1. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
133. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Knowledge translation methods and tools. McMaster University, Hamilton. http://www.nccmt.ca/resources/registry. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
134. Harris C, Garrubba M. Finding the evidence: Guide to the best available evidence to support introduction of new technologies and clinical practices. Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Southern Health 2011. Available from: http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/1218939. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
135. CASP UK. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Oxford. http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
136. Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C. An Introduction to Evidence-Informed Public Health and A Compendium of Critical Appraisal Tools for Public Health Practice. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, Hamilton. http://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/b331668f85bc6357f262944f0aca38c14c89c5a4.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
137. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Economics tools for public health. McMaster University, Hamilton. 2011. http://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/122. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
138. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Economics and Tools. https://www.cdc.gov/stltpublichealth/pheconomics/index.html. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
139. Simoens S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(12):2950-66. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6122950.
140. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E. 2006;4:14. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-4-14.
141. The Health Foundation. Star: Socio-Technical Allocation of Resources. Guidance document. 2013. Available from: http://www.health.org.uk/collection/star-socio-technical-allocation-resources. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
142. The Health Foundation. Looking for value in hard times. How a new approach to priority setting can help improve patient care while making savings. 2012. Available from: http://www.health.org.uk/sites/health/files/LookingForValueInHardTimes.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
143. Airoldi M, Morton A, Smith J, Bevan G. Healthcare prioritisation at the local level: a socio-technical approach. Priority Setting for Population Health 2011. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59892/1/-lse.ac.uk-storage-LIBRARY-Secondary-libfile-shared-repository-Content-Bevan,%20G-Bevan-Healthcare-prioritisation-local-2011-Bevan-Healthcare-prioritisation-local-author.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
144. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking - the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270.
145. Browman GP, Manns B, Hagen N, Chambers CR, Simon A, Sinclair S. 6-STEPPPs: a modular tool to facilitate clinician participation in fair decisions for funding new cancer drugs. J Oncol Practice Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;4(1):2-7. doi: 10.1200/jop.0812001.
146. Baltussen R, Mikkelsen E, Tromp N, Hurtig A, Byskov J, Olsen O, et al. Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E. 2013;11(1):26. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-26.
147. Youngkong S, Tromp N, Chitama D. The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E. 2011;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-9-8.
148. Prasad V, Ioannidis JP. Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-1.
149. Guindo LA, Wagner M, Baltussen R, Rindress D, van Til J, Kind P, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation: C/E. 2012;10(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-10-9.
150. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:454. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-454.
151. Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4(1):25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-25.
152. Leggat SG, Scheil W, Williams H, Kerin K. Tools for priority setting: lessons from South Australia. Aust Health Rev. 2006;30(1):65-72.
153. Robinson S, Dickinson H, Williams I, Freeman T, Rumbold B, Spence K. Setting priorities in health: a study of English primary care trusts: health services management Centre, University of Birmingham and the Nuffield trust, 2011.
154. Golan O, Hansen P. Which health technologies should be funded? A prioritization framework based explicitly on value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2012;1(1):44. doi: 10.1186/2045-4015-1-44.
155. Ruano-Ravina A, Velasco-Gonzalez M, Varela-Lema L, Cerda-Mota T, Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I et al. Identification, prioritisation and assessment of obsolete health technologies. A methodolgical guideline. HTA Reports: avalia-t No. 2007/01: Galician Health Technology Assessment Agency, 2009.
156. Vachon B, Desorcy B, Camirand M, Rodrigue J, Quesnel L, Guimond C, et al. Engaging primary care practitioners in quality improvement: making explicit the program theory of an interprofessional education intervention. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:106. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-106.
157. Oosthuizen C, Louw J. Developing program theory for purveyor programs. Implement Sci. 2013;8:23. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-23.
158. Huijbregts MP, Kay T, Klinck B. Theory-based programme development and evaluation in physiotherapy. Physiother Can. 2008;60(1):40-50. doi: 10.3138/physio/60/1/40.
159. Donaldson SI. Program theory-driven evaluation science: strategies and applications. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UlM6pxP2XVcC&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&ots=pDEYMTHXbd&sig=8S3Wu4RqYQ8lloufFjc97MTz1VQ#v=onepage&q&f=false. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
160. Funnell SC, Rogers PJ. Purposeful program theory; 2011.
161. Wilder Research. Program theory and logic models. 2009.
162. Knowlton LW, Phillips CC. The Logic Model Guidebook. Better Strategies for Great Results. Second ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc 2013.
163. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic model development guide. Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. 2004.
164. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Eval Program Plann. 1999;22(1):65-72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189 (98)00042-1
165. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients'care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225-30.
166. Grol R, Wensing M. Eccles Me. Improving practice: a systematic approach to implementation of change in patient care. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2004.
167. Health NSW. A framework for building capacity to improve health. Better health Centre. Sydney: NSW Health Department; 2001.
168. Baker DW, Qaseem A, Reynolds PP, Gardner LA, Schneider EC. Design and use of performance measures to decrease low-value services and achieve cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):55-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00560.
169. Montini T, Graham ID. "Entrenched practices and other biases": unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation. Implementation science: IS. 2015;10:24. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0211-7.
170. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2006;26(1):13-24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.
171. Robinson S, Glasby J, Allen K. It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it': lessons for health care from decommissioning of older people's services. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(6):614-22. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12046.
172. Noseworthy T, Clement F. Health technology reassessment: scope, methodology, & language. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(03):201-2. doi:doi:10.1017/S0266462312000359
173. Peacock SJ, Mitton C, Ruta D, Donaldson C, Bate A, Hedden L. Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(5):539-52. doi: 10.1586/erp.10.66.
174. de Vries EF, Struijs JN, Heijink R, Hendrikx RJ, Baan CA. Are low-value care measures up to the task? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1656-3.
175. Gerdvilaite J, Nachtnebel A. Disinvestment: overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. HTA- Projektbericht., vol nr. 57. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2011.
176. Ovretveit J. Does improving quality save money? A review of evidence of which improvements to quality reduce costs to health service providers. London: The Health Foundation; 2009.
177. Malhotra N, Jacobson B. Save to invest. Developing criteria-based commissioning for planned health care in London, 2007.
178. Department of Human Services. Future directions for health technology uptake, diffusion and disinvestment in Victorian public health services. Victoria: Department of Human Services; 2007.
179. Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14(2):117-23. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000311888.06252.bb.
180. van Bodegom-Vos L, Davidoff F, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Implementation and de-implementation: two sides of the same coin? BMJ Qual Safety. 2016; doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005473.
181. Massatti RR, Sweeney HA, Panzano PC, Roth D. The de-adoption of innovative mental health practices (IMHP): why organizations choose not to sustain an IMHP. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2008;35(1-2):50-65. doi: 10.1007/s10488-007-0141-z.
182. Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow RE. Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007;34(2):105-14. doi: 10.1080/08836610701564055.
183. Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23. doi: 10.1186/1743-8462-4-23.
184. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. What approaches have been taken and efforts made to ensure public involvement in decision making relating to potential disinvestment in healthcare interventions and technologies?. In: Public involvement in decision making relating to potential: Technologies scoping report 16 2013. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our-work/technologies-and-medicines/shtg-scoping-reports/technologies-scoping-report-16.aspx?theme=mobile. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
185. Garcia-Armesto S, Campillo-Artero C, Bernal-Delgado E. Disinvestment in the age of cost-cutting sound and fury. Tools for the Spanish National Health System. Health Policy. 2013;110(2-3):180-5. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.007.
186. Hughes D, Ferner R. New drugs for old: disinvestment and NICE. BMJ. 2010;340 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c572.
187. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. Working paper 2010/5. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney; 2010.
188. Eddama O, Coast J. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy. 2008;86(2-3):129-41. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.010.
189. Bryan S, Mitton C, Donaldson C. Breaking the addiction to technology adoption. Health Econ. 2014;23(4):379-83. doi: 10.1002/hec.3034.
190. Baghbanian A, Torkfar G. Economics and resourcing of complex healthcare systems. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36(4):394-400. doi: 10.1071/ah11041.
191. Wulff KC, Miller FG, Pearson SD. Can coverage be rescinded when negative trial results threaten a popular procedure? The ongoing saga of vertebroplasty. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2269-76. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0159.
192. Evans BA, Snooks H, Howson H, Davies M. How hard can it be to include research evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from a mixed methods study. Implementation science: IS. 2013;8:17. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-17.
193. Hamilton S, Huby G, Tierney A, Powell A, Kielmann T, Sheikh A, et al. Mind the gap between policy imperatives and service provision: a qualitative study of the process of respiratory service development in England and Wales. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:248. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-248.
194. National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014.