Cargando…

Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts

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 systematic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Last, Briana S, Buttenheim, Alison M, Timon, Carter E, Mitra, Nandita, Beidas, Rinad S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8276299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34253672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048801
_version_ 1783721877455241216
author Last, Briana S
Buttenheim, Alison M
Timon, Carter E
Mitra, Nandita
Beidas, Rinad S
author_facet Last, Briana S
Buttenheim, Alison M
Timon, Carter E
Mitra, Nandita
Beidas, Rinad S
author_sort Last, Briana S
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8276299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82762992021-07-27 Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts Last, Briana S Buttenheim, Alison M Timon, Carter E Mitra, Nandita Beidas, Rinad S BMJ Open Health Services Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8276299/ /pubmed/34253672 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048801 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Last, Briana S
Buttenheim, Alison M
Timon, Carter E
Mitra, Nandita
Beidas, Rinad S
Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title_full Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title_fullStr Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title_short Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
title_sort systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8276299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34253672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048801
work_keys_str_mv AT lastbrianas systematicreviewofcliniciandirectednudgesinhealthcarecontexts
AT buttenheimalisonm systematicreviewofcliniciandirectednudgesinhealthcarecontexts
AT timoncartere systematicreviewofcliniciandirectednudgesinhealthcarecontexts
AT mitranandita systematicreviewofcliniciandirectednudgesinhealthcarecontexts
AT beidasrinads systematicreviewofcliniciandirectednudgesinhealthcarecontexts