IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0052159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Often Are Ineffective Interventions Still Used in Clinical Practice? A Cross-Sectional Survey of 6,272 Clinicians in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao-Min Luo
  • Jin-Ling Tang
  • Yong-Hua Hu
  • Li-Ming Li
  • Yan-Ling Wang
  • Wei-Zhong Wang
  • Li Yang
  • Xiao-hui Ouyang
  • Guang-cai Duan

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization reported in 2011that irrational use of medicines was a serious global problem that is wasteful and harmful. The worst is use of ineffective or harmful interventions which should not be used at all. However, little is known about the changes that 20 years of evidence-based medicine has made particularly in reducing use of ineffective interventions. We surveyed clinicians in China to show how often ineffective interventions were still used in practice. Methods: 3,246 clinicians from 24 tertiary hospitals were surveyed in person and another 3,063 through an online survey between 2006–2007. The main outcomes are prescription by a clinician, and use in a patient of, an ineffective intervention and of a matched effective intervention in patients with the same disease. 129 ineffective interventions for 68 diseases were identified from the BMJ Clinical Evidence and included in the survey. One effective intervention was identified for each disease and a total of 68 effective interventions were thus also included. The frequency of use of effective interventions was used as a reference for that of ineffective intervention. Results: The mean prescription rate by clinicians is 59.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 58.6% to 59.4%) and 81.0% (95% CI: 80.6% to 81.4%) respectively for ineffective and effective interventions. The mean frequency of use in patients is 31.2% (95% CI: 30.8% to 31.6%) and 56.4% (95% CI: 56.0% to 56.8%) for ineffective and effective interventions respectively. The relative reduction in use of ineffective interventions as compared with that of matched effective interventions is 27.2% (95% CI: 27.0% to 27.4%) and 44.7% (95% CI: 44.3% to 45.1%) for clinician's prescription and use in patients respectively. 8.6% ineffective interventions were still routinely used in practice. Conclusions: Ineffective interventions were still commonly used. Efforts are necessary to further reduce and eventually eliminate ineffective interventions from practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao-Min Luo & Jin-Ling Tang & Yong-Hua Hu & Li-Ming Li & Yan-Ling Wang & Wei-Zhong Wang & Li Yang & Xiao-hui Ouyang & Guang-cai Duan, 2013. "How Often Are Ineffective Interventions Still Used in Clinical Practice? A Cross-Sectional Survey of 6,272 Clinicians in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052159
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052159
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052159&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0052159?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.