Using a Triple Aim Approach to Implement “Less-is-More Together” and Smarter Medicine Strategies in an Interprofessional Outpatient Setting: Protocol for an Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased awareness of the world's problematic growing health care expenditure and health care shortages requires sustainable use of available resources. To promote cultural changes in medical mindsets, societies representing medical specialties have developed new Choosing Wisely strategies. The Valais Medical Society and the Valais Pharmacy Association have developed an interprofessional collaboration project entitled "Less-is-more Together-PPI" to analyze and optimize change management practices focusing on the prescription and deprescription of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to enhance interprofessional collaboration between physicians, pharmacists, and patients to optimize PPI use, avoid unnecessary treatments and improve therapeutic adherence to indicated therapies, and to analyze hindrances and facilitators to implementing interprofessional Less-is-more strategies in the field. METHODS: Home-dwelling adults domiciled in Valais and prescribed PPIs in the last 6 months will be invited to participate in this observational study. The studied subpopulation will be constituted of consenting patients whose physicians and pharmacists also voluntarily agree to participate. The process of collecting, pooling, transmitting, evaluating, and protecting data has been validated by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Canton Vaud. RESULTS: The Primary Triple Aim outcome measures will be (1) population health: patient's assessment of their own health, functional status, and disease burden using a monthly questionnaire for 6 months; Behavioral/physiological factors will be investigated using a final questionnaire at 6 months, (2) experience of care: assessment using a final questionnaire for participating patients, pharmacists and physicians, and an analysis of negative/positive experiences via 6 follow-up questionnaires, and (3) Per capita cost: participants' fluctuating or decreasing PPI intake (number of pills/dosage) and an analysis of participants' different categories following their medical prescription, in relation to possible bias effects on the overall drug intake of the population studied. Secondary outcomes will be participation rates; patient, physician, and pharmacist follow-up; and evaluations of participants' experiences and their perceived benefits, as well as whether the interprofessional process can be improved. CONCLUSIONS: This project seeks a deeper understanding of how Less-is-more and smarter-medicine strategies are perceived by patients and health care providers in their daily lives in a very specific context. It will reveal some of the hindrances to and facilitators for efficient cultural change toward a more sustainable health care system. The results will be useful to optimize and scale up further Choosing Wisely approaches. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/13896.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".