Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Better Service by Doing Less: Introducing De-implementation Research in HIV

  • Implementation Science (E Geng, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current HIV/AIDS Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The course of HIV research has led to a multitude of interventions to prevent and treat HIV. With the arrival of more effective interventions comes the need to end, or de-implement, less effective interventions.

Purpose of Review

To describe the state of de-implementation research in HIV and provide a rationale for expanded research in this area.

Recent Findings

Existing studies have identified a set of HIV-specific interventions appropriate for de-implementing and described the persistence of interventions that should be ended. However, to our knowledge, strategies to successfully promote appropriate de-implementation of HIV-specific interventions have not been examined.

Summary

De-implementing interventions that are no longer needed is an opportunity to improve the quality and effectiveness of HIV services. Opportunities to expand this field of research abound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. NIH Office of AIDS Research: History. 2018. https://www.oar.nih.gov/about/history. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  2. Lerner BH, Gulick RM, Dubler NN. Rethinking nonadherence: historical perspectives on triple-drug therapy for HIV disease. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(7):573–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Airoldi M, Zaccarelli M, Bisi L, Bini T, Antinori A, Mussini C, et al. One-pill once-a-day HAART: a simplification strategy that improves adherence and quality of life of HIV-infected subjects. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:115–25.

  4. Krishnaratne S, Hensen B, Cordes J, Enstone J, Hargreaves J. Interventions to strengthen the HIV prevention cascade: a systematic review of reviews. Lancet HIV. 2016;3(7):e307–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Compendium of HIV Intervention Research. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/research/interventionresearch/compendium/index.htmlThis resources identifies public health interventions appropriate for de-implementation in HIV. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  6. •• McKay VR, Morshed AB, Brownson RC, Proctor EK, Prusaczyk B. Letting go: Conceptualizing intervention de‐implementation in public health and social service settings. Am J Community Psychol. 2018 Sep;62(1-2):189-202. This article provides conceptually reviews de-implementation in public health and social services.

  7. •• Niven DJ, Mrklas KJ, Holodinsky JK, Straus SE, Hemmelgarn BR, Jeffs LP, Stelfox HT. Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med. 2015 Dec 1;13(1):255. This article provides a conceptual frameworks and reviews current literature in medicine and healthcare.

  8. •• Colla CH, Mainor AJ, Hargreaves C, Sequist T, Morden N. Interventions aimed at reducing use of low-value health services: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2017;74:507–50. This article reviews strategies to appropriately de-implement interventions.

  9. Gnjidic D, Elshaug AG. De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McKay VR, Margaret Dolcini M, Hoffer LD. The dynamics of de-adoption: a case study of policy change, de-adoption, and replacement of an evidence-based HIV intervention. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(4):821–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Patterson SE, Milloy MJ, Ogilvie G, Greene S, Nicholson V, Vonn M, et al. The impact of criminalization of HIV non-disclosure on the healthcare engagement of women living with HIV in Canada: a comprehensive review of the evidence. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(1):20572.

  12. Holtgrave DR, Hall HI, Wehrmeyer L, Maulsby C. Costs, consequences and feasibility of strategies for achieving the goals of the National HIV/AIDS strategy in the United States: a closing window for success? AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1365–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ford N, Ball A, Baggaley R, Vitoria M, Low-Beer D, Penazzato M, et al. The WHO public health approach to HIV treatment and care: looking back and looking ahead. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):e76–86.

  14. Mutasa-Apollo T, Ford N, Wiens M, Socias ME, Negussie E, Wu P, et al. Effect of frequency of clinic visits and medication pick-up on antiretroviral treatment outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20:21647.

  15. Janowicz DM. HIV transmission and injection drug use: lessons from the Indiana outbreak. Top Antivir Med. 2016;24(2):90–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brownson RC, Allen P, Jacob RR, Harris JK, Duggan K, Hipp PR, et al. Understanding mis-implementation in public health practice. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(5):543–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Niven DJ, Leigh JP, Stelfox HT. Ethical considerations in the de-adoption of ineffective or harmful aspects of healthcare. Healthc Manage Forum. 2016;29(5):214–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McKay VR, Combs TB, Dolcini MM, Brownson RC. The de-implementation and persistence of low-value HIV prevention interventions in the United States: a cross-sectional study. Implementation Science Communications. In press. 2020

  19. McKay V, Combs T, Reid M, Ingaiza L, Tetteh E, Chitenga S. Understanding de-implementation and persistence of low value HIV prevention interventions in the United States: a mixed-method study. Poster presentation accepted to the AIDS 2020 International Conference.

  20. Reid M, Tetteh L, Ingaiza L, Mckay V. High impact for whom? A qualitative analysis of organization concerns about the transition to high impact prevention policy. Poster presentation accepted to the AIDS 2020 International Conference.

  21. • Choosing Wisely: HIV medicine association. 2016. https://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/hiv-medicine-association/. This resources identifies medical interventions appropriate for de-implementation in HIV. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  22. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morgan DJ, Brownlee S, Leppin AL, Kressin N, Dhruva SS, Levin L, Landon BE, Zezza MA, Schmidt H, Saini V, Elshaug AG. Setting a research agenda for medical overuse. Bmj. 2015 Aug 25;351:h4534.

  24. Bhatia RS, Kerr EA. Implementation of Choosing Wisely: promise and pitfalls. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018;44:697–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. •• Choosing Wisely: Promoting conversations between providers and patients. https://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed 28 Feb 2020. This article reviews existing evidence for de-implementation strategies.

  26. Klamerus ML, Damschroder LJ, Sparks JB, Skurla SE, Kerr EA, Hofer TP, Caverly TJ. Developing Strategies to Reduce Unnecessary Services in Primary Care: Protocol for User-Centered Design Charrettes. J Med Internet Res. 2019;8(11):e15618.

  27. Morgan DJ, Dhruva SS, Wright SM, Korenstein D. 2016 update on medical overuse: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1687–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen Q, Larochelle MR, Weaver DT, Lietz AP, Mueller PP, Mercaldo S, et al. Prevention of prescription opioid misuse and projected overdose deaths in the United States. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(2):e187621.

  29. The Community Guide: HIV/AIDS, STIs, & Teen Pregnancy. 2020. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/topic/hiv-stis-and-teen-pregnancy. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  30. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: EBP resource Center. 2020. https://www.samhsa.gov/ebp-resource-center. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  31. The Center for HIV Law and Policy: Our Work. 2020 https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/about/our-work. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  32. Montini T. Graham ID (2015) “entrenched practices and other biases”: unpacking the historical, economic, professional, and social resistance to de-implementation. Implement Sci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0211-7.

  33. Paprica PA, Culyer AJ, Elshaug AG, Peffer J, Sandoval GA. From talk to action: policy stakeholders, appropriateness, and selective disinvestment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(4):236–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang V, Maciejewski ML, Helfrich CD, Weiner BJ. Working smarter not harder: coupling implementation to de-implementation. Healthcare. 2018;6(2):104–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Castro DR, Delabre RM, Molina JM. Give PrEP a chance: moving on from the “risk compensation” concept. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25351.

  36. Kippax S, Stephenson N. Beyond the distinction between biomedical and social dimensions of HIV prevention through the lens of a social public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:789–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pinto RM, Park S. De-implementation of evidence-based interventions: implications for organizational and managerial research. Hum Serv Organ Manag Leadersh Gov. 2019;43(4):336–43.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, Gillespie KN. Evidence-based public health. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Johns DM, Bayer R, Fairchild AL. Evidence and the politics of deimplementation: the rise and decline of the “counseling and testing” paradigm for HIV prevention at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Milbank Q. 2016;94(1):126–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McCree DH, Williams AM, Chesson HW, Beer L, Jeffries WL, Lemons A, et al. Changes in disparities in estimated HIV incidence rates among Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States, 2010–2015. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;81(1):57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Helfrich CD, Hartmann CW, Parikh TJ, Au DH. Promoting health equity through de-implementation research. Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):93–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mayer KH, Allan-Blitz LT. PrEP 1.0 and beyond: optimizing a Biobehavioral intervention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;82(2):S113–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sagherian MJ, Huedo-Medina TB, Pellowski JA, Eaton LA, Johnson BT. Single-session Behavioral interventions for sexual risk reduction: a meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50(6):920–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. NIH: Notice of Special Interest. De-implementation of ineffective or low-value clinical practices along the cancer care continuum. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-CA-20-021.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2020.

  45. Norton WE, Kennedy AE, Chambers DA. Studying de-implementation in health: an analysis of funded research grants. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The development of this manuscript was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grant no. R21MH115772-01 and National Institute of Health and National Centers for Advancing Translational Science CTSA grant no. UL1TR002345.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

    Virginia R. McKay, Emmanuel K. Tetteh, Miranda J. Reid & Lucy M. Ingaiza

Authors
  1. Virginia R. McKay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel K. Tetteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miranda J. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucy M. Ingaiza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia R. McKay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Implementation Science

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKay, V.R., Tetteh, E.K., Reid, M.J. et al. Better Service by Doing Less: Introducing De-implementation Research in HIV. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 17, 431–437 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-020-00517-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-020-00517-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation