Abstract
Abstract
Background
Data on overuse of diagnostic and therapeutic resources underline their contribution to the decline in healthcare quality. The application of “Do Not Do” recommendations, in interaction with gender biases in primary care, remains to be fully understood. Therefore, this study aims to identify which low-value practices (LVPs) causing adverse events are susceptible to be applied in primary care setting with different frequency between men and women.
Methods
A consensus study was conducted between November 1, 2021, and July 4, 2022, in the primary care setting of the Valencian Community, Spain. Thirty-three of the 61 (54.1%) health professionals from clinical and research settings invited, completed the questionnaire. Participants were recruited by snowball sampling through two scientific societies, meeting specific inclusion criteria: over 10 years of professional experience and a minimum of 7 years focused on health studies from a gender perspective. An initial round using a questionnaire comprising 40 LVPs to assess consensus on their frequency in primary care, potential to cause serious adverse events, and different frequency between men and women possibly due to gender bias. A second round-questionnaire was administered to confirm the final selection of LVPs.
Results
This study identified nineteen LVPs potentially linked to serious adverse events with varying frequencies between men and women in primary care. Among the most gender-biased and harmful LVPs were the use of benzodiazepines for insomnia, delirium, and agitation in the elderly, and the use of hypnotics without a previous etiological diagnosis.
Conclusions
Identifying specific practices with potential gender biases, mainly in mental health for the elderly, contributes to healthcare promotion and bridges the gap in gender inequalities.
Trial registration
NCT05233852, registered on 10 February 2022.
Funder
Conselleria de Innovación, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad Digital, Generalitat Valenciana
Universidad Miguel Hernández
Instituto de Salud Carlos III
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference24 articles.
1. Gupta P, Gupta M, Koul N. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment; how to deal with too much medicine. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(8):3815–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_433_20.
2. Albarqouni L, Arab-Zozani M, Abukmail E, Greenwood H, Pathirana T, Clark J, Kopitowski K, Johansson M, Born K, Lang E, Moynihan R. Overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(10):e008696. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008696.
3. Almazán C, Caro-Mendivelso J, Mias M. Els professionals sanitaris i la desadopció de pr ctiques clíniques de poc valor: projecte Essencial Afegint valor a la pr ctica clínica [Health professionals and de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: the Essencial Project. Adding value to clinical practice]. Ann Med. 2018;101:146–50.
4. ABIM Foundation. Choosing Wisely. n.d. Retrieved from https://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed 7 June 2024.
5. Garner S, Littlejohns P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4519.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献