0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost of Low-Value Imaging Worldwide: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Objective

          Imaging with low or no benefit for the patient undermines the quality of care and amounts to vast opportunity costs. More than 3.6 billion imaging examinations are performed annually, and about 20–50% of these are of low value. This study aimed to synthesize knowledge of the costs of low-value imaging worldwide.

          Methods

          This systematic review was based on the PRISMA statement. The database search was developed in Medline and further adapted to Embase-Ovid, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Primary empirical studies assessing the costs of low-value diagnostic imaging were included if published between 2012 and March 2022. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, descriptive studies, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed-methods studies were eligible. The analysis was descriptive.

          Results

          Of 5,567 records identified, 106 were included. Most of the studies included were conducted in the USA ( n = 76), and a hospital or medical center was the most common setting ( n = 82). Thirty-eight of the included studies calculated the costs of multiple imaging modalities; in studies with only one imaging modality included, conventional radiography was the most common ( n = 32). Aggregated costs for low-value examinations amounts to billions of dollars per year globally. Initiatives to reduce low-value imaging may reduce costs by up to 95% without harming patients.

          Conclusions

          This study is the first systematic review of the cost of low-value imaging worldwide, documenting a high potential for cost reduction. Given the universal challenges with resource allocation, the large amount used for low-value imaging represents a vast opportunity cost and offers great potential to improve the quality and efficiency of care.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-024-00876-2.

          Related collections

          Most cited references124

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Early Trends Among Seven Recommendations From the Choosing Wisely Campaign.

          The Choosing Wisely campaign consists of more than 70 lists produced by specialty societies of medical practices or procedures of minimal clinical benefit to patients in most situations, with recommendations regarding judicious use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Addressing overutilization in medical imaging.

            The growth in medical imaging over the past 2 decades has yielded unarguable benefits to patients in terms of longer lives of higher quality. This growth reflects new technologies and applications, including high-tech services such as multisection computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET). Some part of the growth, however, can be attributed to the overutilization of imaging services. This report examines the causes of the overutilization of imaging and identifies ways of addressing the causes so that overutilization can be reduced. In August 2009, the American Board of Radiology Foundation hosted a 2-day summit to discuss the causes and effects of the overutilization of imaging. More than 60 organizations were represented at the meeting, including health care accreditation and certification entities, foundations, government agencies, hospital and health systems, insurers, medical societies, health care quality consortia, and standards and regulatory agencies. Key forces influencing overutilization were identified. These include the payment mechanisms and financial incentives in the U.S. health care system; the practice behavior of referring physicians; self-referral, including referral for additional radiologic examinations; defensive medicine; missed educational opportunities when inappropriate procedures are requested; patient expectations; and duplicate imaging studies. Summit participants suggested several areas for improvement to reduce overutilization, including a national collaborative effort to develop evidence-based appropriateness criteria for imaging; greater use of practice guidelines in requesting and conducting imaging studies; decision support at point of care; education of referring physicians, patients, and the public; accreditation of imaging facilities; management of self-referral and defensive medicine; and payment reform.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Why are clinical practice guidelines not followed?

              Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of “normal practice” and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                elin.kjelle@ntnu.no
                Journal
                Appl Health Econ Health Policy
                Appl Health Econ Health Policy
                Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1175-5652
                1179-1896
                1 March 2024
                1 March 2024
                2024
                : 22
                : 4
                : 485-501
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Sciences, Gjøvik at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802 Gjøvik, Norway
                [2 ]Centre of Medical Ethics at the University of Oslo, ( https://ror.org/01xtthb56) Blindern, Postbox 1130, 0318 Oslo, Norway
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6370-2729
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0254-7953
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2573-4222
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6709-4265
                Article
                876
                10.1007/s40258-024-00876-2
                11178636
                38427217
                002736e3-397f-4116-a3c2-a852a1c968ed
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 11 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005416, Norges Forskningsråd;
                Award ID: 302503
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital)
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

                Economics of health & social care
                Economics of health & social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article