Engaging the consumer in disinvestment in public healthcare: Concerns, perspectives and attitudes of older adults

Rationale: Low-value care in public health can be addressed via disinvestment with the support of disinvestment research generated evidence. Consumers' views of disinvestment have rarely been explored despite the potential effects of this process on the care they will receive and the importance of consumer participation in decision-making in public healthcare. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to understand consumer concerns, perceptions and attitudes towards disinvestment processes, with the goal of providing recommendations to health service researchers and managers to more effectively engage consumers in shared decision-making in public healthcare. Method: We conducted semistructured interviews using four scenarios describing the principles of disinvestment, how and why it could be undertaken, and a fifth scenario that described a real-life application of these principles. These scenarios were presented to participants in a written word document or a digital story during semistructured interviews. Participants were 18 community-dwelling older adults who were recruited via convenience sampling. Questions were addressed to the participants regarding their feelings and concerns towards disinvestment, their participation as consumers in disinvestment processes, as well as their preference for communicating information about disinvestment to patients and families. Results: Four major themes emerged around the negative perception of disinvestment and positive perception of research. Participants were concerned that the removal of a clinical activity was mainly the result of financial constraints in hospital systems. At times, participants indicated that disinvestment and its justifications were not easily understood. Participants expressed a need for consumer advocacy not always through themselves, but via others with more expertize; a single consumer is insufficient in representing the broader consumer perspective. Participants stressed the importance of transparency in relation to research evidence and decision-making outcomes. Face-to-face dissemination of information by expert staff was preferred, which could be supplemented with clear and concise written materials. Conclusion: Consumers' main perception of disinvestment processes was that the removal of a clinical care activity depended on financial imperatives from hospital administration and political agendas. This tended to cause suspicion about reasons behind the removal of care, which overshadowed comprehension of the ineffective/inconclusive evidence that were key to disinvestment.