IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0299907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do people know and think about medical overuse? an online questionnaire study in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Carolin Nürnberger
  • Thomas Kühlein
  • Susann Hueber

Abstract

Background: Medical overuse is defined as health care services that exceed the individual needs of patients and when the potential harms of medical interventions exceed their benefits. It has impacts on patients as well as on health care resources. To address medical overuse, it is important to understand the knowledge and experiences of overuse on the side of patients. Research questions: What is the citizens’ understanding of overuse? How do they assess its relevance, causes, consequences and potential solutions? Methods: A quantitative online survey was conducted. The participants were asked to state what they understand by medical overuse. Statements on causes, consequences and possible solutions were evaluated. Recruitment was carried out via a panel of a market research institute (Schlesinger Group). Results: The survey was completed by 406 participants. In terms of age and gender, the sample corresponded to the distribution in the German population. The majority had never heard of medical overuse (58%). About 60% assumed that medical overuse means "too much medicine including overtreatment and overtesting”. Medical overuse was mainly suspected for services not covered by the public health insurance system (56%), surgical interventions (45%) and medication prescriptions (37%). Reasons for medical overuse were seen in uncoordinated care and financial incentives, but also in the expectations of patients. The main problem with medical overuse was seen in rising health care costs, while harmful physical and mental consequences for patients were mentioned less often. In order to reduce medical overuse, little importance was attributed to a primary care based system or higher financial contribution of patients. Instead, stricter cost control on the side of physicians and better coordination between care providers were suggested as solutions. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics hardly showed any differences in response behavior. Conclusion: More than half of the respondents had never heard of medical overuse. Overuse was mainly associated with financial causes and consequences. It was not seen that overuse can be harmful for patients directly. The limited awareness of the problem of overuse probably is a barrier to tackling it effectively. Communicating the topic to the public might therefore be an effective start to mitigate medical overuse. Take home message: Many citizens seem not to be familiar with the concept of medical overuse, especially not with the fact that it may directly cause harm to patients. Informing citizens about the harms of medical overuse might be helpful in mitigating it.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolin Nürnberger & Thomas Kühlein & Susann Hueber, 2024. "What do people know and think about medical overuse? an online questionnaire study in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299907
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299907
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299907&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0299907?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:pone00:0299907. 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.