Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: a sociological perspective on tackling a contemporary healthcare issue

Does the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine's Clinical Protocol #36 'The Mastitis Spectrum' promote overtreatment and risk worsened outcomes for breastfeeding families? Commentary

BACKGROUND

In 2022 the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM) published Clinical Protocol #36: The Mastitis Spectrum, which aims to update clinical approaches to management of benign lactation-related breast inflammation. The protocol has been timely because of the exponential increase in knowledge about the human milk microbiome over the past decade. This Commentary aims to continue respectful debate amongst clinicians and researchers within the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine and more broadly, confident that we share a fundamental commitment to promote breastfeeding and support the well-being of lactating women, their infants and their families.

ANALYSIS

Although Clinical Protocol #36 offers advances, it does not fulfil the principles of best practice implementation science for translation of evidence into clinical guidelines. Clinical Protocol #36 inaccurately represents studies; misrepresents theoretical models as proven aetiologies; does not consistently attribute sources; does not reliably apply the SORT taxonomy; and relies upon single case reports. As a result, various recommendations in Clinical Protocol #36 lack an evidence-base or credible underlying theoretical model. This includes recommendations to use 'lymphatic drainage' massage, therapeutic ultrasound, and oral lecithin. Similarly, based on a contestable theoretical model which is presented as fact, Clinical Protocol #36 makes the recommendation to either reduce frequency of milk removal or to maintain current frequency of milk removal during an episode of breast inflammation. Although Clinical Protocol #36 limits this advice to cases of 'hyperlactation', the diagnosis 'hyperlactation' itself is undefinable. As a result, this recommendation may put breastfeeding women who present with breast inflammation at risk of worsened inflammation and decreased breast milk production.

CONCLUSION

Clinical Protocol #36 offers some advances in the management of breast inflammation. However, Clinical Protocol #36 also exposes clinicians to two international trends in healthcare which undermine health system sustainability: overdiagnosis, including by over-definition, which increases risk of overtreatment; and antibiotic over-use, which worsens the crisis of global antimicrobial resistance. Clinical Protocol #36 also recommends unnecessary or ineffective interventions which may be accessed by affluent patients within advanced economies but are difficult to access for the global majority. The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine may benefit from a review of processes for development of Clinical Protocols.

Instant Gratification and Overtreating to Be Safe: Perceptions of U.S. Intensive Care Unit Pharmacists and Residents on Antimicrobial Stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship programs have been associated with numerous impacts on medical practice including reductions in costs, antimicrobial resistance, and adverse events. While antimicrobial stewardship is now considered an essential element of medical practice, the understandings of the value of antimicrobial stewardship among medical practitioners vary. Additionally, non-physician practitioners are regularly left out of antimicrobial stewardship interventions targeting antimicrobial decision-making. Here, we contribute the perspective from resident physicians and specialists in pharmacy regarding their involvement in antimicrobial prescribing. Notably, our semi-structured interviews with 10 residents and pharmacy specialists described their limited autonomy in the clinical setting. However, the participants regularly worked alongside primary antimicrobial decision-makers and described feeling pressure to overtreat to be safe. The clear rationales and motivations associated with antimicrobial prescribing have a noticeable impact on physicians in training and non-physician practitioners, and as such, we argue that antimicrobial stewardship interventions targeting primary antimicrobial decision-makers are missing an opportunity to address the breadth of antimicrobial prescribing culture. By looking at the perspectives and rationales of physicians in training and non-physician practitioners, we can see evidence that the act of antimicrobial prescribing is impacted by individuals on all levels of the hierarchies present in medical practice.

Not 'putting a name to it': Managing uncertainty in the diagnosis of childhood obesity

Childhood obesity is a challenging diagnosis. Children's body mass index (BMI) is an imprecise diagnostic of health, leading clinicians' interactions with patients and families to focus on the potential of future harm rather than the presence of infirmity or disease. This is complicated by emphasis on certainty in medical care; clinical diagnoses like childhood obesity are intended to help delineate good and bad health among patients. However, healthiness and wellbeing take on many meanings among individual children and families, especially in relation to weight. To better understand different forms of uncertainty and challenges in providing care, this study draws on 28 semi-structured interviews with U.S. health practitioners working with pediatric patients to examine strategies for communicating risk and defining success in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood obesity. Rather than focusing on patients' current BMIs or making the explicit diagnosis of obesity, clinicians turn to more optimistic prognoses emphasizing the gradual development of beliefs and behaviors that promote long-term physical, mental, and social health. This prognostic framework privileges the doctor-patient relationship over medical guidelines and protocols dictated by diagnoses, encouraging greater consideration of non-clinical factors shaping patients' health and weight. Clinicians expand their diagnostic framework and criteria to include information on the totality of patients' present and future lives, allowing for cognitively, emotionally, and socially attuned understanding of health and weight that is not focused on BMI. Critically, clinicians' awareness of the social etiology childhood obesity heightens their sense of futility about addressing it through clinical interventions, demonstrating the need for a diagnostic and treatment model that empowers doctors to look beyond the more proximate, biophysiological determinants of health.

A win-win scenario? Restrictive policies from alternative standpoints

PURPOSE

In this viewpoint article, the authors consider the challenges in implementing restrictive policies, with a particular focus on how these policies are experienced, in practice, from alternative standpoints.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The authors draw on social science studies of decommissioning work to highlight how patient and official versions of value often vary, creating difficulties and distrust as restrictive policies are implemented. Patients and the public are well aware that financial calculations are somehow embedded in concepts of "evidence" and "value" but are usually unfamiliar with the social infrastructures that produce and utilise such concepts. The authors discuss with reference to a contemporary restrictive programme in England.

FINDINGS

While policymakers and researchers frequently present restrictive policies as "win-win" scenarios (achieving both cost-savings for healthcare services and improved patient care), social science analyses highlight the potential for tensions and controversies between stakeholders. The authors recognise that cost containment is a necessary component of policymaking work but argue that policymakers and researchers should seek to map (and make visible) the socially organised reasoning, systems and processes that are involved in enacting restrictive policies. Although transparency may pose challenges, it is important for informed democratic engagement, allowing legitimate scrutiny of whose voices are being heard and interests served (the "winners" and "losers").

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The authors argue for social science analyses that explore overuse, value and restrictive practices from alternative (e.g. patient) standpoints. These can provide important insights to help identify priorities for intervention and support better communication.