Duddy Claire, Wong Geoffrey
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 12;8(9):e023117. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023117.
Studies have demonstrated the existence of significant variation in test-ordering patterns in both primary and secondary care, for a wide variety of tests and across many health systems. Inconsistent practice could be explained by differing degrees of underuse and overuse of tests for diagnosis or monitoring. Underuse of appropriate tests may result in delayed or missed diagnoses; overuse may be an early step that can trigger a cascade of unnecessary intervention, as well as being a source of harm in itself.
This realist review will seek to improve our understanding of how and why variation in laboratory test ordering comes about. A realist review is a theory-driven systematic review informed by a realist philosophy of science, seeking to produce useful theory that explains observed outcomes, in terms of relationships between important contexts and generative mechanisms.An initial explanatory theory will be developed in consultation with a stakeholder group and this 'programme theory' will be tested and refined against available secondary evidence, gathered via an iterative and purposive search process. This data will be analysed and synthesised according to realist principles, to produce a refined 'programme theory', explaining the contexts in which primary care doctors fail to order 'necessary' tests and/or order 'unnecessary' tests, and the mechanisms underlying these decisions.
Ethical approval is not required for this review. A complete and transparent report will be produced in line with the RAMESES standards. The theory developed will be used to inform recommendations for the development of interventions designed to minimise 'inappropriate' testing. Our dissemination strategy will be informed by our stakeholders. A variety of outputs will be tailored to ensure relevance to policy-makers, primary care and pathology practitioners, and patients.
CRD42018091986.
研究表明,在初级和二级医疗保健中,对于各种各样的检查以及在许多卫生系统中,检查开单模式存在显著差异。实践不一致可能是由于诊断或监测检查的使用不足和过度使用程度不同所致。适当检查的使用不足可能导致诊断延迟或漏诊;过度使用可能是引发一系列不必要干预的早期步骤,其本身也是危害的一个来源。
本实证性综述旨在增进我们对实验室检查开单差异如何以及为何产生的理解。实证性综述是一种由科学的实证主义哲学驱动的理论导向型系统综述,旨在生成有用的理论,从重要背景与生成机制之间的关系来解释观察到的结果。将与一个利益相关者群体协商制定一个初始解释性理论,这个“项目理论”将根据通过迭代和有目的的搜索过程收集到的现有二级证据进行检验和完善。这些数据将根据实证主义原则进行分析和综合,以生成一个完善的“项目理论”,解释初级保健医生未开出“必要”检查和/或开出“不必要”检查的背景,以及这些决策背后的机制。
本综述无需伦理批准。将根据拉梅塞斯标准编制一份完整且透明的报告。所形成的理论将用于为制定旨在尽量减少“不适当”检查的干预措施提供建议。我们的传播策略将由我们的利益相关者提供信息。将量身定制各种产出,以确保与政策制定者、初级保健和病理学从业者以及患者相关。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42018091986。