Community-Academic Partnership to Assess the Role of Physical Disinvestment on Firearm Violence in Toledo, OH.

Reversing physical disinvestment, e.g., by remediating abandoned buildings and vacant lots, is an evidence-based strategy to reduce urban firearm violence. However, adoption of this strategy has been inconsistent across US cities. Our community-academic partnership sought to support adoption in Toledo, OH, USA, by generating locally relevant analyses on physical disinvestment and firearm violence. We used a spatial case-control design with matching. Physical disinvestment measures were derived from a citywide parcel foot audit conducted by the Lucas County Land Bank in summer 2021. Firearm violence outcomes were incident-level shootings data from the Toledo Police Department from October 2021 through February 2023. Shooting locations were matched to controls 1:4 on poverty rate, roadway characteristics, and zoning type. Exposures were calculated by aggregating parcels within 5-min walking buffers of each case and control point. We tested multiple disinvestment measures, including a composite index. Models were logistic regressions that adjusted for the matching variables and for potential spatial autocorrelation. Our sample included N = 281 shooting locations and N = 1124 matched controls. A 1-unit increase in the disinvestment score, equal to approximately 1 additional disrepair condition for the average parcel within the walking buffer, was associated with 1.68 times (95% CI: 1.36, 2.07) higher odds of shooting incidence. Across all other measures, greater disinvestment was associated with higher odds of shooting incidence. Our finding of a strong association between physical disinvestment and firearm violence in Toledo can inform local action. Community-academic partnership could help increase adoption of violence prevention strategies focused on reversing physical disinvestment.

Cost-effectiveness of intraoperative radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the treatment of early breast cancer: a disinvestment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy represents a key component in curative-intent treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients. In recent years, two accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) techniques are preferred for this population in our organization: electron-based Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) and Linac-based External Beam Radiotherapy, particularly Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Recently published long-term follow-up data evaluating these technologies have motivated a health technology reassessment of IORT compared to IMRT. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate health-state transitions from a cohort of women with early-stage breast cancer, after lumpectomy and adjuvant APBI using either IORT or IMRT techniques. The cost-effectiveness from a private health provider perspective was assessed from a disinvestment point of view, using life-years (LYs) and recurrence-free life-years (RFLYs) as measure of benefits, along with their respective quality adjustments. Expected costs and benefits, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported. Finally, a sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness using lower IORT local recurrence and metastasis rates in IORT patients, and if equipment maintenance costs are removed. RESULTS: IORT technology was dominated by IMRT in all cases (i.e., fewer benefits with greater costs). Despite small differences were found regarding benefits, especially for LYs, costs were considerably higher for IORT. For sensitivity analyses with lower recurrence and metastasis rates for IORT, and scenario analyses without equipment maintenance costs, IORT was still dominated by IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: For this cohort of patients, IMRT was, at least, non-inferior to IORT in terms of expected benefits, with considerably lower costs. As a result, IORT disinvestment should be considered, favoring the use of IMRT in these patients.

Association of Public Works Disasters with Substance Use Difficulties: Evidence from Flint, Michigan, Five Years after the Water Crisis Onset.

Public works environmental disasters such as the Flint water crisis typically occur in disenfranchised communities with municipal disinvestment and co-occurring risks for poor mental health (poverty, social disconnection). We evaluated the long-term interplay of the crisis and these factors with substance use difficulties five years after the crisis onset. A household probability sample of 1970 adults living in Flint during the crisis was surveyed about their crisis experiences, use of substances since the crisis, and risk/resilience factors, including prior potentially traumatic event exposure and current social support. Analyses were weighted to produce population-representative estimates. Of the survey respondents, 17.0% reported that substance use since the crisis contributed to problems with their home, work, or social lives, including 11.2% who used despite a doctor's warnings that it would harm their health, 12.3% who used while working or going to school, and 10.7% who experienced blackouts after heavy use. A total of 61.6% of respondents reported using alcohol since the crisis, 32.4% using cannabis, and 5.2% using heroin, methamphetamine, or non-prescribed prescription opioids. Respondents who believed that exposure to contaminated water harmed their physical health were more likely to use substances to the detriment of their daily lives (RR = 1.32, 95%CI: 1.03-1.70), as were respondents with prior potentially traumatic exposure (RR = 2.99, 95%CI: 1.90-4.71), low social support (RR = 1.94, 95%CI: 1.41-2.66), and PTSD and depression (RR's of 1.78 and 1.49, respectively, p-values < 0.01). Public works disasters occurring in disenfranchised communities may have complex, long-term associations with substance use difficulties.

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND: The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care. METHODS: This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment-databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development.

Engaging the consumer in disinvestment in public healthcare: Concerns, perspectives and attitudes of older adults.

RATIONALE: Low-value care in public health can be addressed via disinvestment with the support of disinvestment research generated evidence. Consumers' views of disinvestment have rarely been explored despite the potential effects of this process on the care they will receive and the importance of consumer participation in decision-making in public healthcare. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand consumer concerns, perceptions and attitudes towards disinvestment processes, with the goal of providing recommendations to health service researchers and managers to more effectively engage consumers in shared decision-making in public healthcare. METHOD: We conducted semistructured interviews using four scenarios describing the principles of disinvestment, how and why it could be undertaken, and a fifth scenario that described a real-life application of these principles. These scenarios were presented to participants in a written word document or a digital story during semistructured interviews. Participants were 18 community-dwelling older adults who were recruited via convenience sampling. Questions were addressed to the participants regarding their feelings and concerns towards disinvestment, their participation as consumers in disinvestment processes, as well as their preference for communicating information about disinvestment to patients and families. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged around the negative perception of disinvestment and positive perception of research. Participants were concerned that the removal of a clinical activity was mainly the result of financial constraints in hospital systems. At times, participants indicated that disinvestment and its justifications were not easily understood. Participants expressed a need for consumer advocacy not always through themselves, but via others with more expertize; a single consumer is insufficient in representing the broader consumer perspective. Participants stressed the importance of transparency in relation to research evidence and decision-making outcomes. Face-to-face dissemination of information by expert staff was preferred, which could be supplemented with clear and concise written materials. CONCLUSION: Consumers' main perception of disinvestment processes was that the removal of a clinical care activity depended on financial imperatives from hospital administration and political agendas. This tended to cause suspicion about reasons behind the removal of care, which overshadowed comprehension of the ineffective/inconclusive evidence that were key to disinvestment.

Impact of Active Disinvestment on Decision-Making for Surgery in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Qualitative Semi-structured Interview Study Among Hospital Sales Managers and Orthopedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal of reimbursement for low-value care through a policy change, ie, active disinvestment, is considered a potentially effective de-implementation strategy. However, previous studies have shown conflicting results and the mechanism through which active disinvestment may be effective is unclear. This study explored how the active disinvestment initiative regarding subacromial decompression (SAD) surgery for subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) in the Netherlands influenced clinical decision-making around surgery, including the perspectives of orthopedic surgeons and hospital sales managers. METHODS: We performed 20 semi-structured interviews from November 2020 to October 2021 with ten hospital sales managers and ten orthopedic surgeons from twelve hospitals across the Netherlands as relevant stakeholders in the active disinvestment process. The interviews were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse interview transcripts independently by two authors and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. RESULTS: Two overarching themes were identified that negatively influenced the effect of the active disinvestment initiative for SAPS. The first theme was that the active disinvestment represented a "Too small piece of the pie" indicating little financial consequences for the hospital as it was merely used in negotiations with healthcare insurers to reduce costs, required a disproportionate amount of effort from hospital staff given the small saving-potential, and was not clearly defined nor enforced in the overall healthcare insurer agreements. The second theme was "They [healthcare insurer] got it wrong," as the evidence and guidelines had been incorrectly interpreted, the active disinvestment was at odds with clinician experiences and beliefs and was perceived as a reduction in their professional autonomy. CONCLUSION: The two overarching themes and their underlying factors highlight the complexity for active disinvestment initiatives to be effective. Future de-implementation initiatives including active disinvestment should engage relevant stakeholders at an early stage to incorporate their different perspectives, gain support and increase the probability of success.

Desinvestimento de tecnologias em saúde no Sistema Único de Saúde: um perfil no período 2012-2022 / Disinvestment of health technologies in the Brazilian Unified Health System: a profile between 2012-2022

O termo "desinvestimento" se refere ao processo de retirada de recursos de intervenções que oferecem pouco ou nenhum ganho em saúde frente a seu custo. O intuito deste processo é reforçar práticas comprovadamente seguras, efetivas ou mais custo-efetivas, otimizando os resultados em saúde e a sustentabilidade econômica dos sistemas de saúde. O objetivo do trabalho foi caracterizar o processo de desinvestimento de medicamentos conduzido pela Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias (CONITEC) no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) entre 2012 e 2022, de forma exploratória através de análise documental dos seus relatórios técnicos de recomendações. Foram coletados nome do medicamento; sua classificação pelo sistema ATC; indicação clínica; demandante; realização de Consulta Pública; modalidade de desinvestimento recomendada e justificativa para o desinvestimento. Também foi avaliado o alinhamento das diretrizes de tratamento com as decisões de desinvestimento e o status de registro sanitário das tecnologias desinvestidas em diferentes ocasiões. Foram avaliados 30 relatórios de recomendação, correspondentes a 90 medicamentos. Três relatórios tiveram como recomendação a manutenção de sete tecnologias de perfil diversificado no SUS. Outros três relatórios eram referentes a tecnologias que foram incorporadas sob a modalidade ad experimentum e que, portanto, foram reavaliadas após três anos no SUS. Quanto às tecnologias efetivamente desinvestidas (80), elas se dividiram principalmente pelos grupos L (agentes antineoplásicos e imunomoduladores; 29,3%), J (anti-infecciosos de uso sistêmico; 21,3%) e A (aparelho digestivo e metabolismo; 20%). As principais indicações clínicas dos medicamentos desinvestidos foram: artrite reumatoide; HIV; hepatite C; e doença de Crohn. Justificativas mais mencionadas foram a indisponibilidade de registro ativo do medicamento no país (24,1%), seguida por problemas relacionados à segurança (20,6%) e efetividade (19,9%). Todas as demandas tiveram origem interna do Ministério da Saúde. Em 31,3%, houve exclusão do medicamento para indicação específica e, em 30%, exclusão total do sistema de saúde; em 27,5%, optou-se por excluir apenas determinada apresentação farmacêutica; em 10% as exclusões foram de apresentação para indicação específica; e em 1,2% ocorreu restrição de uso. Consulta Pública foi realizada em 36% dos casos. Após a publicação da Diretriz de Avaliação de Desempenho de Tecnologias em Saúde no final de 2016, o perfil de medicamentos desinvestidos por categoria ATC e por indicações clínicas adquiriram maior diversidade; as justificativas para o desinvestimento, que antes focavam em questões relacionadas a efetividade e segurança, passaram a se concentrar na indisponibilidade do medicamento no mercado; as modalidades de desinvestimento se acumularam mais em exclusões do SUS e exclusões de apresentação, e a Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Insumos Estratégicos se tornou a principal demandante; submissão a consultas públicas subiu de 11,9% para 86,8%. O máximo de adequação estrutural identificado nos relatórios em relação aos tópicos preconizados pela Diretriz foi de 46,2%. Embora as iniciativas de desinvestimento tenham avançado nos últimos anos, o tema ainda enfrenta dificuldades para estabelecer uma agenda sólida no país.

Disinvestment refers to withdrawing resources from interventions that offer little or no health gain compared to their cost, seeking to reinforce practices proven to be safe, effective or more cost-effective and to optimize health outcomes and the economic sustainability of health systems. This study aimed to characterize the drug divestment process conducted by the National Commission for Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC) in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) between 2012 and 2022, in an exploratory way through their the technical recommendations reports. Drug name and ATC classification, clinical indication, proponents, occurrence of Public Consultation, recommended divestment modality and justifications for disinvestment were evaluated. We also evaluated the agreement of treatment guidelines with disinvestment decisions and the sanitary registration status of technologies disinvested at different times. We evaluated 30 recommendations reports corresponding to 90 drugs. Three reports recommended the maintenance of seven technologies in SUS. Another three reports referred to technologies that were incorporated under the ad experimentum modality and then were reassessed after three years in SUS. As for the technologies effectively disinvested (80), the drugs mainly belonged to the ATC classes L (29.3%), J (21.3%) and A (20%). The main clinical indications of the disinvested drugs were: rheumatoid arthritis, HIV, hepatitis C, and Crohn's disease. The main justifications were absence of market approval for the drug in Brazil (24.1%) and problems related to safety (20.6%) and effectiveness (19.9%). All requests were from the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Public Consultation was carried out in 36% of the situations. There were recommendations to exclude the drug for a specific indication in 31.3% of the cases and total exclusion from the SUS in 30%; exclusion of a particular pharmaceutical presentation and exclusion of presentation for a specific indication occurred in 27.5% and 10%, respectively. After the publication of the Methodological Guideline for Performance Avaliation of Health Technologies ate the end of 2016, the profile of drugs disinvested by ATC category and by clinical indications acquired bigger diversity; the justifications for disinvestment, which previously focused on issues related to effectiveness and safety, passed to focus on the unavailability of the drug on the market; disinvestment modalities concentrated more on SUS exclusions and presentation exclusions; the Secretaria of Science, Technology, Innovation and Strategic Insums became the main proponent of disinvestment demands; submission to public consultations grow up from 11.9% to 86.8%. The maximum structural adequacy identified of the reports in relation to the topics recommended by the Guideline was 46,2%. The lack of standardization and overly simplified reporting formats stood out. Although divestment initiatives have advanced in recent years, this theme still needs to improve in establishing a solid agenda in Brazil.

Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".

Interest has increased in the topic of de-implementation, ie, reducing so-called low-value care (LVC). The article "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands" by Verkerk and colleagues identifies national-level factors affecting LVC use in those three countries. This commentary raises three critical points regarding the study. First, the study does not clearly define the national level. Secondly, national-level factors might not be relevant for all types of LVCs and thirdly, the study's rather limited sample makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. We also include some critical comments related to some of the study's findings in relation to results of our recently published scoping review of the international literature on de-implementation and use of LVC and an interview study with primary care physicians on LVC use. Finally, we provide some suggestions for further research that we believe is needed to improve understanding of LVC use and facilitate its de-implementation.

Not built for families: Associations between neighborhood disinvestment and reduced parental cognitive stimulation.

Infants learn and develop within an ecological context that includes family, peers, and broader built and social environments. This development relies on proximal processes-reciprocal interactions between infants and the people and environments around them that help them understand their world. Most research examining predictors of proximal processes like parent-child interaction and parenting has focused on elements within the home and family. However, factors like the neighborhood built environment may also exhibit an influence, and may be particularly critical in infancy, as socioeconomic disparities in cognition and language emerge early in life. Moreover, influence from the built environment could independently exacerbate these disparities, as research indicates that neighborhood impacts may be especially relevant for families living in neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment and therefore have been under-resourced. The current study examines these questions by determining the association of neighborhood vacancy rate and observed physical disorder-indicators of poverty, residential stability, and long-term structural discrimination-with parental cognitive stimulation among predominantly Black/African-American families in Flint, Michigan. Flint is particularly salient for this study because vacancy rates and disinvestment vary widely across the city, driven by its long-time status as a city struggling economically. Regression analyses controlling for caregiver education, mental health, and social support indicated that vacancy rate and physical disorder negatively predicted parental cognitive stimulation. Moreover, there were significant interactions between the built environment and social support, indicating that, particularly for parent-child shared reading, vacancy rate and physical disorder predicted reduced shared reading only when parents had limited social support. These results have important implications for public policy around vacant property demolition and neighborhood reinvestment programs, as they indicate that the neighborhood built environment is associated with parenting behaviors that have important impacts on infants' learning and development.

National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The de-implementation of low-value care (LVC) is important to improving patient and population health, minimizing patient harm and reducing resource waste. However, there is limited knowledge about how the de-implementation of LVC is governed and what challenges might be involved. In this study, we aimed to (1) identify key stakeholders' activities in relation to de-implementing LVC in Sweden at the national governance level and (2) identify challenges involved in the national governance of the de-implementation of LVC. METHODS: We used a purposeful sampling strategy to identify stakeholders in Sweden having a potential role in governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level. Twelve informants from nine stakeholder agencies/organizations were recruited using snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four potential activities for governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level were identified: recommendations, health technology assessment, control over pharmaceutical products and a national system for knowledge management. Challenges involved included various vested interests that result in the maintenance of LVC and a low overall priority of working with the de-implementation of LVC compared with the implementation of new evidence. Ambiguous evidence made it difficult to clearly determine whether a practice was LVC. Unclear roles, where none of the stakeholders perceived that they had a formal mandate to govern the de-implementation of LVC, further contributed to the challenges involved in governing that de-implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Various activities were performed to govern the de-implementation of LVC at a national level in Sweden; however, these were limited and had a lower priority relative to the implementation of new methods. Challenges involved relate to unfavourable change incentives, ambiguous evidence, and unclear roles to govern the de-implementation of LVC. Addressing these challenges could make the national-level governance of de-implementation more systematic and thereby help create favourable conditions for reducing LVC in healthcare.

Disinvestment in healthcare: a scoping review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Disinvestment from low value health technologies is growing globally. Diverse evidence gathering and assessment methods were used to implement disinvestment initiatives, however, less than half of the empirical studies report reduced use of the low-value services. This scoping review aimed to synthesize the information from available reviews on the concepts and purposes of disinvestment in healthcare, the approaches and methods used, the role of stakeholders and facilitators and barriers in its implementation. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and PRISMA statement for scoping review. Published reviews on disinvestment were identified from scientific databases including health technology assessment (HTA) Web sites using the terms "disinvestment," "health technology reassessment," and "healthcare." The data obtained was synthesized narratively to identify similarities and differences across the approaches based on the prespecified categories. RESULTS: Seventeen reviews were included with thirty-four initiatives identified across sixteen countries at various levels of implementation and responsible agencies for the activities. Two most used methods to facilitate disinvestment decisions are Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) and HTA. Stakeholder involvement is the most important aspect to be addressed, as it acts as both facilitator and barrier in disinvestment initiatives implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Disinvestment programs have been implemented at multilevel, involving multistakeholders and using multiple methods such as PBMA and HTA. However, there is a lack of clarity on the additional dimensions of technical analysis related to these tools. Further research could focus on technology optimization in healthcare as part of overall health technology management.

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.

BACKGROUND: When rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a 'grandfather clause' when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians' and patient organization representatives' experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Participants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients' need for treatment (e.g., the treatment's effectiveness and the patient's medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment's effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.

Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook".

BACKGROUND: To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative. METHODS: The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (i.e., potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting. RESULTS: An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game). CONCLUSION: The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

Moving Past the Loss: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Health Care Staff Experiences of Disinvestment.

This longitudinal qualitative study examines staff experience of disinvestment from a service they are accustomed to providing to their patients. It took place alongside a disinvestment trial that measured the impact of the removal of weekend allied health services from acute wards at two hospitals. Data were gathered from repeated interviews and focus groups with 450 health care staff. We developed a grounded theory, which explains changes in staff perceptions over time and the key modifying factors. Staff appeared to experience disinvestment as loss; a key difference to other operational changes. Early staff experiences of disinvestment were primarily negative, but evolved with time and change-management strategies such as the provision of data, clear and persistent communication approaches, and forums where the big picture context of the disinvestment was robustly discussed. These allowed the disinvestment trial to be successfully implemented at two health services, with high compliance with the research protocol.

Is disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services associated with treatment access, completions and related harm? An analysis of English expenditure and outcomes data.

INTRODUCTION: The positive impact of substance use treatment is well-evidenced but there has been substantial disinvestment from publicly funded treatment services in England since 2013/2014. This paper examines whether this disinvestment from adult alcohol and drug treatment provision was associated with changes in treatment and health outcomes, including: treatment access, successful completions from treatment, alcohol-specific hospital admissions, alcohol-specific mortality and drug-related deaths. METHODS: Annual administrative data from 2013/2014 to 2018/2019 was matched at local government level and multi-level time series analysis using linear mixed-effect modelling conducted for 151 upper-tier local authorities in England. RESULTS: Between 2013/2014 and 2018/2019, £212.2 million was disinvested from alcohol and drug treatment services, representing a 27% decrease. Concurrently, 11% fewer people accessed, and 21% fewer successfully completed, treatment. On average, controlling for other potential explanatory factors, a £10 000 disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services was associated with reductions in all treatment outcomes, including 0.3 fewer adults in treatment (95% confidence interval 0.16-0.45) and 0.21 fewer adults successfully completing treatment (95% % confidence interval 0.12-0.29). A £10 000 disinvestment from alcohol treatment was not significantly associated with changes in alcohol-specific hospital admissions or mortality, nor was disinvestment from drug treatment associated with the rate of drug-related deaths. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Local authority spending cuts to alcohol and drug treatment services in England were associated with fewer people accessing and successfully completing alcohol and drug treatment but were not associated with changes in related hospital admissions and deaths.

Associations between neighborhood disinvestment and breast cancer outcomes within a populous state registry.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BrCa) outcomes vary by social environmental factors, but the role of built-environment factors is understudied. The authors investigated associations between environmental physical disorder-indicators of residential disrepair and disinvestment-and BrCa tumor prognostic factors (stage at diagnosis, tumor grade, triple-negative [negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor] BrCa) and survival within a large state cancer registry linkage. METHODS: Data on sociodemographic, tumor, and vital status were derived from adult women who had invasive BrCa diagnosed from 2008 to 2017 ascertained from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry. Physical disorder was assessed through virtual neighborhood audits of 23,276 locations across New Jersey, and a personalized measure for the residential address of each woman with BrCa was estimated using universal kriging. Continuous covariates were z scored (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 0 ± 1) to reduce collinearity. Logistic regression models of tumor factors and accelerated failure time models of survival time to BrCa-specific death were built to investigate associations with physical disorder adjusted for covariates (with follow-up through 2019). RESULTS: There were 3637 BrCa-specific deaths among 40,963 women with a median follow-up of 5.3 years. In adjusted models, a 1-SD increase in physical disorder was associated with higher odds of late-stage BrCa (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.15). Physical disorder was not associated with tumor grade or triple-negative tumors. A 1-SD increase in physical disorder was associated with a 10.5% shorter survival time (95% confidence interval, 6.1%-14.6%) only among women who had early stage BrCa. CONCLUSIONS: Physical disorder is associated with worse tumor prognostic factors and survival among women who have BrCa diagnosed at an early stage.

Key Factors that Promote Low-Value Care: Views of Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Around the world, policies and interventions are used to encourage clinicians to reduce low-value care. In order to facilitate this, we need a better understanding of the factors that lead to low-value care. We aimed to identify the key factors affecting low-value care on a national level. In addition, we highlight differences and similarities in three countries. METHODS: We performed 18 semi-structured interviews with experts on low-value care from three countries that are actively reducing low-value care: the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. We interviewed 5 experts from Canada, 6 from the United States, and 7 from the Netherlands. Eight were organizational leaders or policy-makers, 6 as low-value care researchers or project leaders, and 4 were both. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The key factors that promote low-value care are the payment system, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, fear of malpractice litigation, biased evidence and knowledge, medical education, and a 'more is better' culture. These factors are seen as the most important in the United States, Canada and the Netherlands, although there are several differences between these countries in their payment structure, and industry and malpractice policy. CONCLUSION: Policy-makers and researchers that aim to reduce low-value care have experienced that clinicians face a mix of interdependent factors regarding the healthcare system and culture that lead them to provide low-value care. Better awareness and understanding of these factors can help policy-makers to facilitate clinicians and medical centers to deliver high-value care.

To what extent do citizens support the disinvestment of healthcare interventions? An exploration of the support for four viewpoints on active disinvestment in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Active disinvestment of healthcare interventions (i.e. discontinuing reimbursement by means of a policy decision) has received limited public support in the past. Previous research has identified four viewpoints on active disinvestment among citizens in the Netherlands. However, it remained unclear how strong these viewpoints are supported by society, and by whom. Therefore, the current study aimed to 1) measure the support for these four viewpoints and 2) assess whether support is associated with background characteristics of citizens. METHOD: In an online survey, a representative sample of adult citizens in the Netherlands (n = 1794) was asked to rate their agreement with short narratives of the four viewpoints on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, healthcare utilization, and opinions about responsibility and costs in the healthcare context. Logistic regression models were estimated for each viewpoint to assess the association between viewpoint support and these characteristics. RESULTS: The support for the different viewpoints varied between 46.8% and 57.7% of the sample. Viewpoint support was associated with participants' age, gender, educational level, financial situation, healthcare utilization, opinion on the responsibility of the government for the health of citizens, and opinion on whether the increase in healthcare expenditure and health insurance premiums is considered a problem. CONCLUSION: Resistance to active disinvestment may partially be explained by the consequences of disinvestment citizens anticipate experiencing themselves. Citizens considering the increase in healthcare expenditure a larger problem were more supportive of disinvestment than those considering it less of a problem.