Dataset Information

Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Nudges are interventions that alter the way options are presented, enabling individuals to more easily select the best option. Health systems and researchers have tested nudges to shape clinician decision-making with the aim of improving healthcare service delivery. We aimed to systematically study the use and effectiveness of nudges designed to improve clinicians' decisions in healthcare settings.

Design

A systematic review was conducted to collect and consolidate results from studies testing nudges and to determine whether nudges directed at improving clinical decisions in healthcare settings across clinician types were effective. We systematically searched seven databases (EBSCO MegaFILE, EconLit, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and used a snowball sampling technique to identify peer-reviewed published studies available between 1 January 1984 and 22 April 2020. Eligible studies were critically appraised and narratively synthesised. We categorised nudges according to a taxonomy derived from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.

Results

We screened 3608 studies and 39 studies met our criteria. The majority of the studies (90%) were conducted in the USA and 36% were randomised controlled trials. The most commonly studied nudge intervention (46%) framed information for clinicians, often through peer comparison feedback. Nudges that guided clinical decisions through default options or by enabling choice were also frequently studied (31%). Information framing, default and enabling choice nudges showed promise, whereas the effectiveness of other nudge types was mixed. Given the inclusion of non-experimental designs, only a small portion of studies were at minimal risk of bias (33%) across all Cochrane criteria.

Conclusions

Nudges that frame information, change default options or enable choice are frequently studied and show promise in improving clinical decision-making. Future work should examine how nudges compare to non-nudge interventions (eg, policy interventions) in improving healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Last BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276299 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveDigital nudging has been mooted as a tool to alter user privacy behavior. However, empirical studies on digital nudging have yielded divergent results: while some studies found nudging to be highly effective, other studies found no such effects. Furthermore, previous studies employed a wide range of digital nudges, making it difficult to discern the effectiveness of digital nudging. To address these issues, we performed a systematic review of empirical studies on digital nudging and information disclosure as a specific privacy behavior.MethodThe search was conducted in five digital libraries and databases: Scopus, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, Web of Science, and Science Direct for peer-reviewed papers published in English after 2006, examining the effects of various nudging strategies on disclosure of personal information online.ResultsThe review unveiled 78 papers that employed four categories of nudge interventions: presentation, information, defaults, and incentives, either individually or in combination. A meta-analysis on a subset of papers with available data (n = 54) revealed a significant small-to-medium sized effect of the nudge interventions on disclosure (Hedges' g = 0.32). There was significant variation in the effectiveness of nudging (I2 = 89%), which was partially accounted for by interventions to increase disclosure being more effective than interventions to reduce disclosure. No evidence was found for differences in the effectiveness of nudging with presentation, information, defaults, and incentives interventions.ConclusionIdentifying ways to nudge users into making more informed and desirable privacy decisions is of significant practical and policy value. There is a growing interest in digital privacy nudges for disclosure of personal information, with most empirical papers focusing on nudging with presentation. Further research is needed to elucidate the relative effectiveness of different intervention strategies and how nudges can confound one another.

Project description:Objective The objective of this study was to identify and understand the health system contexts and mechanisms that allow for homeless populations to access appropriate healthcare when needed. Design A realist review. Data sources Ovid MEDLINE, embase.com, CINAHL, ASSIA and grey literature until April 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies The purpose of the review was to identify health system patterns which enable access to healthcare for people who experience homelessness. Peer-reviewed articles were identified through a systematic search, grey literature search, citation tracking and expert recommendations. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for rigour and relevance and coded to identify data relating to contexts, mechanisms and/or outcomes. Analysis Inductive and deductive coding was used to generate context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which were refined and then used to build several iterations of the overarching programme theory. Results Systematic searching identified 330 review articles, of which 24 were included. An additional 11 grey literature and primary sources were identified through citation tracking and expert recommendation. Additional purposive searching of grey literature yielded 50 records, of which 12 were included, for a total of 47 included sources. The analysis found that healthcare access for populations experiencing homelessness is improved when services are coordinated and delivered in a way that is organised around the person with a high degree of flexibility and a culture that rejects stigma, generating trusting relationships between patients and staff/practitioners. Health systems should provide long-term, dependable funding for services to ensure sustainability and staff retention. Conclusions With homelessness on the rise internationally, healthcare systems should focus on high-level factors such as funding stability, building inclusive cultures and setting goals which encourage and support staff to provide flexible, timely and connected services to improve access.

Project description:Clinician educators-who work at the intersection of patient care and resident education-are well positioned to respond to calls for better, safer patient care and resident education. Explicit lessons that address implementing health care improvement and associated residency training came out of the Academic Chronic Care Collaboratives and include the importance of: (1) redesigning the clinical practice as a core component of the residency curriculum; (2) exploiting the efficiencies of the practice team; (3) replacing "faculty development" with "everyone's a learner;" (4) linking faculty across learning communities to build expertise; and (5) using rigorous methodology to design and evaluate interventions for practice redesign. There has been progress in addressing three thorny academic faculty issues-professional satisfaction, promotion and publication. For example, consensus criteria have been proposed for both faculty promotion as well as the institutional settings that nurture academic health care improvement careers, and the SQUIRE Publication Guidelines have been developed as a general framework for scholarly improvement publications. Extensive curricular resources exist for developing the expert faculty cadre. Curricula from representative training programs include quantitative and qualitative research methods, statistical methodologies appropriate for measuring systems change, organizational culture, management, leadership and scholarly writing for the improvement literature. Clinician educators-particularly those in general internal medicine-bear the principal responsibility for both patient care and resident training in academic departments of internal medicine. The intersection of these activities presents a unique opportunity for their playing a central role in implementing health care improvement and associated residency training. However, this role in academic settings will require an unambiguous development strategy both for faculty and their institutions.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the characteristics and healthcare utilisation of high-cost patients and to compare high-cost patients across payers and countries. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:PubMed and Embase databases were searched until 30 October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES:Our final search was built on three themes: 'high-cost', 'patients', and 'cost' and 'cost analysis'. We included articles that reported characteristics and utilisation of the top-X% (eg, top-5% and top-10%) patients of costs of a given population. Analyses were limited to studies that covered a broad range of services, across the continuum of care. Andersen's behavioural model was used to categorise characteristics and determinants into predisposing, enabling and need characteristics. RESULTS:The studies pointed to a high prevalence of multiple (chronic) conditions to explain high-cost patients' utilisation. Besides, we found a high prevalence of mental illness across all studies and a prevalence higher than 30% in US Medicaid and total population studies. Furthermore, we found that high costs were associated with increasing age but that still more than halve of high-cost patients were younger than 65 years. High costs were associated with higher incomes in the USA but with lower incomes elsewhere. Preventable spending was estimated at maximally 10% of spending. The top-10%, top-5% and top-1% high-cost patients accounted for respectively 68%, 55% and 24% of costs within a given year. Spending persistency varied between 24% and 48%. Finally, we found that no more than 30% of high-cost patients are in their last year of life. CONCLUSIONS:High-cost patients make up the sickest and most complex populations, and their high utilisation is primarily explained by high levels of chronic and mental illness. High-cost patients are diverse populations and vary across payer types and countries. Tailored interventions are needed to meet the needs of high-cost patients and to avoid waste of scarce resources.