Unravelling Low-Value Care Decision-Making: Residents' Perspectives on the Influence of Contextual Factors.

BACKGROUND: Several initiatives have been developed to target low-value care (i.e. waste) in decision-making with varying success. As such, decision-making is a complex process and context's influence on decisions concerning low-value care is limitedly explored. Hence, a more detailed understanding of residents' decision-making is needed to reduce future low-value care. This study explores which contextual factors residents experience to influence their decision-making concerning low-value care. Methods: We employed nominal group technique to select four low-value care vignettes. Prompted by these vignettes, we conducted individual interviews with residents. We analyzed the qualitative data thematically using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by Bronfenbrenner's social-ecological framework. This framework provided guidance to 'context' in terms of sociopolitical, environmental, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels. RESULTS: In 2022, we interviewed 19 residents from a Dutch university medical center. We identified 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making, either encouraging or discouraging low-value care. The contextual factors resided in the following levels with corresponding categories: (1) environmental and sociopolitical: society, professional medical association, and governance; (2) organizational: facility characteristics, social infrastructure, and work infrastructure; (3) interpersonal: resident-patient, resident-supervising physician, and resident-others; and (4) individual: personal attributes and work structure. CONCLUSION: This paper describes 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making concerning low-value care. Residents are particularly influenced by factors related to interactions with patients and supervisors. Furthermore, organizational factors and the broader environment set margins within which residents make decisions. While acknowledging that a multi(faceted)-intervention approach targeting all contextual factors to discourage low-value care delivery may be warranted, improving communication skills in the resident-patient dynamics to recognize and explain low-value care seems a particular point of interest over which residents can exercise an influence themselves.

A Social Network Analysis of Influences on Residents' Value-Based Decisions.

PURPOSE: To ensure a value-based health care system, it is becoming increasingly important that residents are trained in making value-based decisions. This study explored the social network influencing residents' value-based decisions. METHOD: To explore the social network influencing residents' value-based decisions, the authors used a semistructured individual and mini-group interviewing approach and participatory visual mapping. In total, 17 residents across 13 different specialties were interviewed from the southeastern postgraduate medical education and training region of the Netherlands, May-November 2021. Two researchers independently coded the transcribed data using an integrated inductive thematic approach. Subsequently, social network analysis was used to visualize the results. RESULTS: Residents indicated that their value-based decisions were influenced by direct actors who influenced decisions related to patients and indirect actors who shaped decisions related to patients without directly modifying them. Different interaction-aspects (i.e., personal, situational, and institutional) further affected residents' ability to make value-based decisions. Thus, residents' value-based decisions were a product of the interplay between various interactions with actors and different interaction-aspects. Residents defined value-based decisions differently, even within an interview. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest residents' value-based decisions are influenced by a multitude of actors, including hierarchically superior colleagues who can directly alter decisions and patients (and their families) and nurses with whom residents consider it important to maintain good relationships. In addition, more experienced actors, mainly from the medical and nursing profession, contribute most to learning. Furthermore, residents' value-based decisions are deeply underpinned by the hidden curriculum. However, many senior physicians may not have received sufficient training in the concept of value-based health care. Consequently, an approach of formally educating residents in value-based health care will likely have limited effects unless social influences in day-to-day clinical settings reinforce its importance.

Incorporating value-based healthcare projects in residency training: a mixed-methods study on the impact of participation on understanding and competency development.

OBJECTIVES: Stimulating the active participation of residents in projects with societally relevant healthcare themes, such as value-based healthcare (VBHC), can be a strategy to enhance competency development. Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) competencies such as leader and scholar are important skills for all doctors. In this study, we hypothesise that when residents conduct a VBHC project, CanMEDS competencies are developed. There is the added value of gaining knowledge about VBHC. DESIGN: An explorative mixed-methods study assessing residents' self-perceived learning effects of conducting VBHC projects according to three main components: (1) CanMEDS competency development, (2) recognition of VBHC dilemmas in clinical practice, and (3) potential facilitators for and barriers to implementing a VBHC project. We triangulated data resulting from qualitative analyses of: (a) text-based summaries of VBHC projects by residents and (b) semistructured interviews with residents who conducted these projects. SETTING: Academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Out of 63 text-based summaries from residents, 56 were selected; and out of 19 eligible residents, 11 were selected for semistructured interviews and were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Regarding CanMEDS competency development, the competencies 'leader', 'communicator' and 'collaborator' scored the highest. Opportunities to recognise VBHC dilemmas in practice were mainly stimulated by analysing healthcare practices from different perspectives, and by learning how to define costs and relate them to outcomes. Finally, implementation of VBHC projects is facilitated by a thorough investigation of a VBHC dilemma combined with an in-depth stakeholder analysis. CONCLUSION: In medical residency training programmes, competency development through active participation in projects with societally relevant healthcare themes-such as VBHC-was found to be a promising strategy. From a resident's perspective, combining a thorough investigation of the VBHC dilemma with an in-depth stakeholder analysis is key to the successful implementation of a VBHC project.

Positive Health dialogue tool and value-based healthcare: a qualitative exploratory study during residents' outpatient consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how residents experienced the application of the Positive Health dialogue tool (PH-tool) during outpatient consultations and its influence on the delivery of value-based healthcare (VBHC). DESIGN: Qualitative study using non-participant observations of outpatient consultations during which residents used the PH-tool, followed by longitudinal individual, semistructured interviews. To analyse the data from observations and interviews, observational form notes' summarisation and categorisation, and an iterative-inductive thematic approach was used. PARTICIPANTS: Eight residents-five from the ear, nose, and throat-department and three from the gastroenterology-hepatology-department-were selected through convenience sampling, accounting for 79 observations and 79 interviews. RESULTS: Residents had bivalent experiences with using the PH-tool. Residents discussed three main benefits: a gained insight into the individual patient's context and functioning, a changed dynamics in resident-patient communication, and an increased awareness regarding value in terms of patient-related outcomes and healthcare costs. Three barriers became apparent: doubts regarding the PH-tool's relevance and scope, boundaries of superspecialised medical professionals, and a lack of demarcation in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The PH-tool use can be beneficial for residents during outpatient consultations with new patients and follow-up in cases of multidimensional problems, particularly in cases of chronic conditions and generalist care. In these situations, the tool yielded valuable patient information beyond physical health, helped foster patient engagement, and enabled tailoring the treatment plan to individual patients' needs. On the other hand, the PH-tool was not a good fit for simple problems, clearly demarcated help requests, periodic follow-up consultations, or verbose patients. In addition, it was not suitable for superspecialised care, because it yielded an abundance of general information. For particular patients and problems, using the PH-tool seems a promising strategy to increase VBHC delivery. Nevertheless, further research and detailing is needed to better align the PH-tool's broad intent and clinical practice.

Discrete choice experiment on educating value-based healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying costs and values in healthcare interventions as well as the ability to measure and consider costs relative to value for patients are pivotal in clinical decision-making and medical education. This study explores residents' preferences in educating value-based healthcare (VBHC) during postgraduate medical education. Exploring residents' preferences in VBHC education, in order to understand what shapes their choices, might contribute to improved medical residency education and healthcare as a whole. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) examined which conditions for educating VBHC are preferred by residents. DCE gives more insight into the trade-off's residents make when choosing alternatives, and which conditions for educating VBHC have the most influence on residents' preference. RESULTS: This DCE shows that residents prefer knowledge on both medical practice as well as the process of care-to be educated by an expert on VBHC together with a clinician. They prefer limited protected time to conduct VBHC initiatives (thus while at work) and desire the inclusion of VBHC in formal educational plans. CONCLUSION: When optimising graduate and postgraduate medical education curricula, these preferences should be considered to create necessary conditions for the facilitation and participation of residents in VBHC education and the set-up of VBHC initiatives.

Quality appraisal of generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice. METHODS: PubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses. RESULTS: This review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.

Design of a trial-based economic evaluation on the cost-effectiveness of employability interventions among work disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability: the CASE-study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, absenteeism and reduced productivity due to work disability lead to high yearly costs reaching almost 5% of the gross national product. To reduce the economic burden of sick leave and reduced productivity, different employability interventions for work-disabled employees or employees at risk of work disability have been developed. Within this study, called 'CASE-study' (Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sustainable Employability), five different employability interventions directed at work disabled employees with divergent health complaints will be analysed on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This paper describes a consistent and transparent methodological design to do so. METHODS/DESIGN: Per employability intervention 142 participants are needed whereof approximately 66 participants receiving the intervention will be compared with 66 participants receiving usual care. Based on the intervention-specific characteristics, a randomized control trial or a quasi-experiment with match-criteria will be conducted. Notwithstanding the study design, eligible participants will be employees aged 18 to 63, working at least 12 h per week, and at risk of work disability, or already work-disabled due to medical restrictions. The primary outcome will be the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcomes are health status and quality of life. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and then 6, 12 and 18 months later. Economic costs will consist of healthcare costs and cost of lost production due to work disability, and will be evaluated from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: The CASE-study is the first to conduct economic evaluations of multiple different employability interventions based on a similar methodological framework. The cost-effectiveness results for every employability intervention will be published in 2014, but the methods, strengths and weaknesses of the study protocol are discussed in this paper. To contribute to treatment options in occupational health practice and enable the development of guidelines on how to conduct economic evaluation better suited to this field; this paper provides an important first step. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Four trials involved in the CASE-study are registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry: Care for Work (NTR2886), Health and Motion (NTR3111), Guidance to Excel in Return to Work (NTR3151), Care for Companies/Second Care (NTR3136).