Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Appropriateness of healthcare interventions: Concepts and scoping of the published literature

  • Claudia Sanmartin (a1), Kellie Murphy (a2), Nicole Choptain (a3), Barbara Conner-Spady (a4), Lindsay McLaren (a4), Eric Bohm (a5), Michael J. Dunbar (a6), Suren Sanmugasunderam (a7), Carolyn De Coster (a8), John McGurran (a9), Diane L. Lorenzetti (a10) and Tom Noseworthy (a4)...

Objectives: This report is a scoping review of the literature with the objective of identifying definitions, conceptual models and frameworks, as well as the methods and range of perspectives, for determining appropriateness in the context of healthcare delivery.

Methods: To lay groundwork for future, intervention-specific research on appropriateness, this work was carried out as a scoping review of published literature since 1966. Two reviewers, with two screens using inclusion/exclusion criteria based on the objective, focused the research and articles chosen for review.

Results: The first screen examined 2,829 abstracts/titles, with the second screen examining 124 full articles, leaving 37 articles deemed highly relevant for data extraction and interpretation. Appropriateness is defined largely in terms of net clinical benefit to the average patient and varies by service and setting. The most widely used method to assess appropriateness of healthcare services is the RAND/UCLA Model. There are many related concepts such as medical necessity and small-areas variation.

Conclusions: A broader approach to determining appropriateness for healthcare interventions is possible and would involve clinical, patient and societal perspectives.

Hide All
1. Ayanian JZ, Landrum MB, Normand SL, Guadagnoli E, McNeil BJ. Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography – do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? N Engl J Med. 1998;338:18961904.
2. Barnato AE, Garber AM. Performance of the RAND appropriateness criteria. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:122130.
3. Bergthold LA. Medical necessity: Do we need it? Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14:180190.
4. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A et al. , A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2:5363.
5. Brook RH, Kamberg CJ. Appropriateness of the use of cardiovascular procedures: A method and results of this application. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1993;123:249253.
6. Buetow SA, Sibbald B, Cantrill JA et al. , Appropriateness in health care: Application to prescribing. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:261271.
7. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Cheney FW. Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. JAMA. 1991;265:19571960.
8. Casparie AF. The ambiguous relationship between practice variation and appropriateness of care: An agenda for further research. Health Policy. 1996;35:247265.
9. Caulfield TA. Wishful thinking: Defining “medically necessary” in Canada. Health Law J. 1996;4:6385.
10. Charles C, Lomas J, Giacomini M. Medical necessity in Canadian health policy: Four meanings and . . . a funeral? Milbank Q. 1997;75:365394.
11. Ford WE. Medical necessity and psychiatric managed care. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2000;23:309317.
12. Fraser GM, Pilpel D, Kosecoff J et al. , Effect of panel composition on appropriateness ratings. Int J Qual Health Care. 1994;6:251255.
13. Greer AL, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL et al. , Bringing the patient back in: Guidelines, practice variations, and the social context of medical practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:747761.
14. Hampton JR. Editorial comment – Ideal treatment and appropriate treatment. Int J Cardiol. 2001;78:221223.
15. Hicks NR. Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care. BMJ. 1994;309:730733.
16. Jacobson PD, Asch S, Glassman PA, Model KE, Hernandez JB. Defining and implementing medical necessity in Washington State and Oregon. Inquiry. 1997;34:143154.
17. Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, Leape LL et al. , Measuring the necessity of medical procedures. Med Care. 1994;32:357365.
18. Kosecoff J, Fink A, Chassin MR, Brook RH. The appropriateness of medical services. Healthspan. 1987;4:1821.
19. Lavis JN, Anderson GM. Appropriateness in health care delivery: Definitions, measurement and policy implications. CMAJ. 1996;154:321328.
20. Lazaro P, Fitch K. From universalism to selectivity: Is ‘appropriateness’ the answer? Health Policy. 1996;36:261272.
21. Leape LL. Unnecessary surgery. Health Serv Res. 1989;24:351407.
22. Leape LL, Park RE, Solomon DH et al. , Does inappropriate use explain small-area variations in the use of health-care services. JAMA. 1990;263:669672.
23. McClellan M, Brook RH. Appropriateness of care. A comparison of global and outcome methods to set standards. Med Care. 1992;30:565586.
24. Naylor CD. What is appropriate care? N Engl J Med. 1998;338:19181920.
25. Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH et al. , Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986;76:766772.
26. Pauly MV. What is unnecessary surgery? Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1979;57:95117.
27. Phelps CE. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:12411245.
28. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1989;95 (Suppl 2):2S-4S.
29. Sharpe VA. The politics, economics, and ethics of “appropriateness”. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1997;7:337343.
30. Sharpe VA, Faden AI. Appropriateness in patient care: A new conceptual framework. Milbank Q. 1996;74:115138.
31. Shekelle P. The appropriateness method. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:228231.
32. Wennberg JE. Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Aff (Millwood). 1984;3:632.
33. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A, Shapiro N. Health care delivery in Maine III: Evaluating the level of hospital performance. J Maine Hosp Assoc. 1975;66:298306.
34. Woodward RS, Warren-Boulton F. Considering the effects of financial incentives and professional ethics on ‘appropriate’ medical care. J Health Econ. 1984;3:223237.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 49 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 301 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.