DOCSLIB.ORG

Too Much Medicine?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Too Much Medicine? Faculty of Health Sciences – Department of Clinical Medicine Too much medicine? A study investigating unwarranted regional variation and use of medical care Ingvild Mathiesen Rosenlund A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor – March 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 3 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 5 LIST OF PAPERS ................................................................................................................................... 6 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 7 1. PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Too muCh mEdiCinE ................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 ExtEnt of ovErusE .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 MeasurEment of ovErusE ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 DirECt mEasurEs of ovErusE .............................................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Regional variation as an indirECt mEasurE of ovErusE ..................................................... 10 2.4 DrivErs of ovErusE ................................................................................................................ 12 2.4.1 LaCk of EvidEnCE .............................................................................................................. 12 2.4.2 Shortcomings of medical guidelines ................................................................................ 13 2.4.3 Early diagnosis ................................................................................................................. 14 2.4.4 DiagnostiC intEnsity of imaging diagnostiCs .................................................................... 15 2.4.5 EconomiC inCEntivEs ........................................................................................................ 16 2.4.6 DefEnsivE mEdicinE .......................................................................................................... 16 2.5 Norwegian publiC hEalth ...................................................................................................... 17 2.6 BaCkground for thE individual papErs .................................................................................. 17 2.6.1 CT for suspECtEd urolithiasis (papEr 1) ............................................................................ 17 2.6.2 RoutinE pElviC Examinations (papEr 2) ............................................................................ 18 2.6.3 DivErtiCular disEasE (papEr 3) .......................................................................................... 18 3. AIMS OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................... 19 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................................... 20 4.1 CT for suspECtEd urolithiasis (papEr 1) ................................................................................ 20 4.1.1 Study population and data collection ............................................................................... 20 4.1.2 VariablEs .......................................................................................................................... 20 4.1.3 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................ 20 4.2 RoutinE pElviC Examinations (papEr 2) ................................................................................. 21 4.2.1 Study population and data collection ............................................................................... 21 4.2.2 VariablEs .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.3 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................ 22 1 4.3 DivErtiCular disEasE (papEr 3) .............................................................................................. 22 4.3.1 Study population and data collection ............................................................................... 22 4.3.2 VariablEs .......................................................................................................................... 22 4.3.3 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................ 23 4.4 EthiCs .................................................................................................................................... 23 5. MAIN RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 24 5.1.1 CT for suspECtEd urolithiasis (papEr 1) ............................................................................ 24 5.1.2 RoutinE pElviC Examinations (papEr 2) ............................................................................ 24 5.1.3 DivErtiCular disEasE (papEr 3) .......................................................................................... 25 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 27 6.1 MethodologiCal ConsidErations ............................................................................................ 27 6.2 Methodologic considerations related to the individual papers ............................................. 28 6.2.1 CT for suspECtEd urolithiasis (papEr 1) ............................................................................ 28 6.2.2 Variation studiEs with data from the Norwegian Patient Registry (paper 2 and 3) ......... 30 6.2.3 RoutinE pElviC Examinations (papEr 2) ............................................................................ 31 6.2.4 DivErtiCular disEasE (papEr 3) .......................................................................................... 32 6.3 DisCussion of main findings ................................................................................................. 33 6.3.1 CT for suspECtEd urolithiasis (papEr 1) ............................................................................ 33 6.3.2 RoutinE pElviC Examinations (papEr 2) ............................................................................ 35 6.3.3 DivErtiCular disEasE (papEr 3) .......................................................................................... 38 6.4 Further studies ...................................................................................................................... 39 6.5 ConsEquEnCEs for CarE .......................................................................................................... 40 7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 43 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I did the presEnt work betwEEn 2013 and 2019 at the DEpartmEnt of CliniCal MEdiCine, FaCulty of HEalth SCiEncEs, UiT The ArctiC University of Norway. I would not have beEn ablE to carry out this thesis without the help and support from many. I am deEply gratEful. I am most gratEful to my main supervisor, Arthur Revhaug. You have generously supportEd – and challEnged mE, in a wEll-balancEd way. You have always made timE for mE, even when you had more than enough on your platE. I am very thankful that you open-mindedly and Curiously wantEd to investigatE the subjECt of this thesis together with mE. I have greatly benefittEd from your ExperiEncE as a resEarcher, supervisor, physiCian, and health care organizEr. I appreCiatE all our talks. I am vEry thankful to Olav HElge Førde, my co-supervisor. I could not have carriEd out this work without your knowlEdge in epidemiology and your experiEncE in health sErviCEs resEarCh. Also, thanks for advising mE to do a PhD the very first timE wE mEt. Linda LEivsEth, I am very happy CentEr for CliniCal DocumEntation and Evaluation designatEd you as my co-author for paper 2 and 3. Your careful and detail-oriEntEd work has both improved this thesis and also taught mE how high mEthodologiCal standards can be implEmEntEd in praCtiCE. I am very thankful. Thanks to Arthur, Olav HElge, and Linda for making mEthodologiCal debatEs thorough, loud, and somEtimEs intEnsEly frustrating, but still humorous and rewarding. Thanks to Ingard NilsEn for your expertisE in gyneCology and contributions as co-author for paper 2. Thanks to Johannes Walsøe for tEChniCal support and Anna Bågenholm for radiologiCal ExpertisE for paper 1. Thanks to GEir Hoff
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evidence for Overuse of Medical Services Around the World
    Series Right care 1 Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world Shannon Brownlee, Kalipso Chalkidou, Jenny Doust, Adam G Elshaug, Paul Glasziou, Iona Heath*, Somil Nagpal, Vikas Saini, Divya Srivastava, Kelsey Chalmers, Deborah Korenstein Lancet 2017; 390: 156–68 Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a Published Online pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is January 8, 2017 challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of S0140-6736(16)32585-5 procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income This is the first in a Series of four papers about right care countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded See Comment pages 101, 102, services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and and 105 deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although Lown Institute, Brookline, MA, harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be USA (S Brownlee MSc, increasing worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Overuse of Medical Services Around the World
    Series Right Care 1 Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world Shannon Brownlee, Kalipso Chalkidou, Jenny Doust, Adam G Elshaug, Paul Glasziou, Iona Heath*, Somil Nagpal, Vikas Saini, Divya Srivastava, Kelsey Chalmers, Deborah Korenstein Overuse, which is defi ned as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a Published Online pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is January 8, 2017 challenging given the diffi culty of defi ning appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)32585-5 can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of This is the first in a Series of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income four papers about right care countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded See Online/Comment services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ defl ecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although S0140-6736(16)32588-0, harms from overuse have not been well quantifi ed and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)32570-3, and increasing worldwide. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(16)32573-9 Introduction diffi cult to address.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health (EXPH)
    DEFINING VALUE IN “VALUE- BASED HEALTHCARE” Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH) Health Further information on the Health and Food Safety Directorate-General is available on the internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/index_en.htm Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 © European Union, 2019 Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. © Photos : http://www.istockphoto.com/, Health and Food Safety Directorate-General Print ISBN 978-92-76-08993-3 doi:10.2875/872343 EW-04-19-516-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-76-08992-6 doi:10.2875/35471 EW-04-19-516-EN-N EXPERT PANEL ON EFFECTIVE WAYS OF INVESTING IN HEALTH (EXPH) Opinion on Defining value in “value-based healthcare” The EXPH adopted this opinion at its 16th plenary on 26 June 2019 after a public hearing on 4 June 2019 Value-based healthcare About the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH) Sound and timely scientific advice is an essential requirement for the Commission to pursue modern, responsive and sustainable health systems. To this end, the Commission has set up a multidisciplinary and independent Expert Panel which provides advice on effective ways of investing in health (Commission Decision 2012/C 198/06).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Research Report Measures and Methodology for International Comparisons of Health Care System Performance Final Report Laurie T. Martin, Carl Berdahl, Rachel M. Burns, Emily Hoch, Evan D. Peet, Peter S. Hussey C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA171-1 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. www.rand.org Preface Compared with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, the United States ranks lower on several notable health-related outcomes, such as infant mortality, that tend to be overemphasized by stakeholders and used as a marker of health care system performance.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Posterabstracts
    POSTER BOARD - 01 External Validity of Thromboprophylaxis Guidelines in Hip Fracture Patients: a Retrospective Analysis Geneviève Courteau Godmaire1,2, Madeleine Durand1,2, Mikhael Laskine1,2 1Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. 2Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada Objectives: Major orthopedic surgeries are recognized risk factors for thrombo-embolic events. Thromboprophylaxis following orthopedic surgery is widely recommended. Yet randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in the population with traumatic hip fracture have enrolled a selected group of patients. Patients with traumatic hip fracture often present with multiple comorbidities making them likely to be underrepresented in thromboprophylaxis studies. We hypothesize that randomized controlled trials in support of the CHEST guidelines for thromboprophylaxis following hip surgery for traumatic fracture have a low external validity. We designed a study to measure the prevalence of exclusion criteria from thromboprophylaxis trials in the population that underwent surgery for a traumatic hip fracture at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM). We also aimed to quantify the number of transfusions received, number of bleeding events and deaths according to the presence or not of exclusion criteria to randomized controlled trials. Method: We identified all original studies supporting the CHEST thromboprophylaxis guidelines for patients suffering a traumatic hip fracture (n = 3). We extracted all inclusion and exclusion criteria reported by authors. Then, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on a random selection of all was patients who underwent an urgent traumatic hip fracture surgery at the CHUM from January 1st 2012 to December 31 2016Patients (n = 250) were randomly selected from the medical archives list (50 patients/year).
    [Show full text]