Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28545430›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting.

Claire Harris, Kelly Allen, Vanessa Brooke, Tim Dyer, Cara Waller, Richard King, Wayne Ramsey, Duncan Mortimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Addressing the overuse-underuse paradox in healthcare.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Claire HarrisSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. claire.harris@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5367-8144
Kelly AllenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Vanessa BrookeCentre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tim DyerCentre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Cara WallerCentre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Richard KingMedicine Program, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Wayne RamseyMedical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Duncan MortimerCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment.

methodsLiterature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed.

resultsFour literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised.

conclusionThis study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Services AdministrationCosts and Cost AnalysisDecision Making, OrganizationalEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Care RationingHealth ResourcesHumansOrganizational Case StudiesPilot ProjectsResource AllocationDe-adoptDecision-makingDecommissionDe-implementDe-listDisinvestmentHealth technologyImplementationResource allocationTCP

Identifiers

PMID28545430
PMCPMC5445482

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.