ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A sustainable healthcare system calls for strengthening the focus on prevention. In general, there is no articulated demand for preventive interventions by an individual. Prevention therefore requires a programmatic approach. Based on an empirical analysis of primary and secondary prevention in our healthcare system, we identify crucial elements of such an approach. DESIGN: Desk research METHOD: The online publication is based on 41 preventive interventions that, according to US guidelines for adults, certainly will (grade A) or are very likely (grade B) to improve health. We investigated whether these interventions were implemented in a similar manner in clinical or public health practice in the Netherlands, and how these interventions are organized, implemented and funded. RESULTS: In the US, a systematic approach for disease prevention is recommended for 15 drug or behavioural interventions. In the Netherlands, six of these (e.g. counselling excessive alcohol consumption) are offered only to patients who present themselves with complaints or questions. In the US, systematic early detection is recommended for 26 diseases. In the Netherlands, for eleven of those, no early detection programme has been implemented (e.g. hypertension). In the Netherlands, all interventions have a basis for funding. CONCLUSION: Firstly, it is recommended that consensus will be reached in the Netherlands about which preventive interventions should be systematically offered to whom. Secondly, strengthening prevention implies the systematic identification of those who might benefit from interventions, especially in case of drug and behavioural ones. Thirdly, our analysis points to the importance of funding that aligns with a programmatic approach.
Subject(s)
Hypertension , Adult , Counseling , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Netherlands , Secondary PreventionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Medical practice variation in caesarean section rates is the most studied type of practice variation in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. This has not resulted in increased homogeneity of treatment between geographic areas or healthcare providers. Our study aim was to evaluate whether current study designs on medical practice variation of caesarean section rates were optimized to identify the unwarranted share of practice variation and could contribute to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation by meeting criteria for audit and feedback. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO/CINAHL and Wiley/Cochrane Library from inception to March 24th, 2020. Studies that compared the rate of caesarean sections between individuals, institutions or geographic areas were included. Study design was assessed on: selection procedure of study population, data source, case-mix correction, patient preference, aggregation level of analysis, maternal and neonatal outcome, and determinants (professional and organizational characteristics). RESULTS: A total of 284 studies were included. Most studies (64%) measured the caesarean section rate in the entire study population instead of using a sample (30%). (National) databases were most often used as information source (57%). Case-mix correction was performed in 87 studies (31%). The Robson classification was used in 20% of the studies following its endorsement by the WHO in 2015. The most common levels of aggregation were hospital level (35%) and grouped hospitals (35%) e.g. private versus public. The percentage of studies that assessed the relationship between variation in caesarean section rates and maternal outcome was 9%, neonatal outcome 19%, determinants (professional and organizational characteristics) 21% and patient preference 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Study designs of practice variation in caesarean sections varied considerably, raising questions about their appropriateness. Studies focused on measuring practice variation, rather than contributing to the reduction of unwarranted practice variation. Future studies should correct for differences in patient characteristics (case-mix) and patient preference to identify unwarranted practice variation. Practice variation studies could be used for audit and feedback if results are presented at lower levels of aggregation, and appeal to intrinsic motivation of physicians, for example by including the health effects on mother and child.
