TitleThe de-implementation and persistence of low-value HIV prevention interventions in the United States: a cross-sectional study.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2020
AuthorsMcKay, VR, Combs, TB, Dolcini, MM, Brownson, RC
JournalImplement Sci Commun
Date Published12/2020

Background: As more effective or efficient interventions emerge out of scientific advancement to address a particular public health issue, it may be appropriate to de-implement low-value interventions, or interventions that are less effective or efficient. Furthermore, factors that contribute to appropriate de-implementation are not well identified. We examined the extent to which low-value interventions were de-implemented among public health organizations providing HIV prevention services, as well as explored socio-economic, organizational, and intervention characteristics associated with de-implementation.

Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey from the fall of 2017 to the spring of 2019 with organizations ( = 188) providing HIV prevention services in the USA. Organizations were recruited from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) website gettested.org from 20 metropolitan statistical areas with the highest HIV incidence. An organization was eligible to participate if the organization had provided at least one of the HIV prevention interventions identified as inefficient by the CDC in the last ten years, and one administrator familiar with HIV prevention programming at the organization was recruited to respond. Complete responses were analyzed to describe intervention de-implementation and identify organizational and intervention characteristics associated with de-implementation using logistic regression.

Results: Organizations reported 359 instances of implementing low-value interventions. Out of the low-value interventions implemented, approximately 57% were group, 34% were individual, and 5% were community interventions. Of interventions implemented, 46% had been de-implemented. Although we examined a number of intervention and organizational factors thought to be associated with de-implementation, the only factor statistically associated with de-implementation was organization size, with larger organizations-those with 50+ FTEs-being 3.1 times more likely to de-implement than smaller organizations (95% CI 1.3-7.5).

Conclusions: While low-value interventions are frequently de-implemented among HIV prevention organizations, many persisted representing substantial inefficiency in HIV prevention service delivery. Further exploration is needed to understand why organizations may opt to continue low-value interventions and the factors that lead to de-implementation.

Alternate JournalImplement Sci Commun
PubMed ID32885215
PubMed Central IDPMC7427853
Grant ListR21 MH115772 / MH / NIMH NIH HHS / United States