The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians' Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1177/0272989X241270001
Maya Fey Hallett, Trine Kjær, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
{"title":"The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians' Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Maya Fey Hallett, Trine Kjær, Line Bjørnskov Pedersen","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241270001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nudges have been proposed as a method of influencing prescribing decisions.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this article is to 1) investigate associations between nudges' characteristics and effectiveness, 2) assess the quality of the literature, 3) assess cost-effectiveness, and 4) create a synthesis with policy recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched health and social science databases. We included studies that targeted prescribing decisions, included a nudge, and used prescribing behavior as the outcome. We recorded study characteristics, effect size of the primary outcomes, and information on cost-effectiveness. We performed a meta-analysis on the standardized mean difference of the studies' primary outcomes, tested for associations between effect size and key intervention characteristics, and created a funnel plot evaluating publication bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis: </strong>We identified 21 studies containing 25 nudges. In total, 62 of 85 (73%) outcomes showed a statistically significant effect. The average effect size was -0.22 standardized mean difference. No studies included heterogeneity analyses. We found no associations between effects and selected study characteristics. Study quality varied and correlated with study design. A total of 7 of 21 (33%) studies included an evaluation of costs. These studies suggested that the interventions were cost-effective but considered only direct effects. We found evidence of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Heterogeneity and few studies limit the possibilities of statistical inference about effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nudges may be effective at directing prescribing decisions, but effects are small and health effects and cost-effectiveness are unclear. Future nudge studies should contain a rationale for the chosen nudge, prioritize the use of high-quality study designs, and include evaluations of heterogeneity, cost-effectiveness, and health outcomes to inform decision makers. Moreover, preregistration of the protocol is warranted to limit publication bias.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Nudging as a method to improve prescribing decisions has gained popularity during the past decade.We find that nudging can improve prescribing decisions, but effect sizes are mostly small, and the size of derived health outcomes is unclear.Most studies use feedback and error-stopping nudges to target excessive opioid or antibiotic prescribing, making heterogeneity analyses across nudge types difficult.Further research on the cost-effectiveness of nudges and generalizability is needed to guide decision makers considering nudging as a tool to guide prescribing decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"986-1011"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241270001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nudges have been proposed as a method of influencing prescribing decisions.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to 1) investigate associations between nudges' characteristics and effectiveness, 2) assess the quality of the literature, 3) assess cost-effectiveness, and 4) create a synthesis with policy recommendations.

Methods: We searched health and social science databases. We included studies that targeted prescribing decisions, included a nudge, and used prescribing behavior as the outcome. We recorded study characteristics, effect size of the primary outcomes, and information on cost-effectiveness. We performed a meta-analysis on the standardized mean difference of the studies' primary outcomes, tested for associations between effect size and key intervention characteristics, and created a funnel plot evaluating publication bias.

Synthesis: We identified 21 studies containing 25 nudges. In total, 62 of 85 (73%) outcomes showed a statistically significant effect. The average effect size was -0.22 standardized mean difference. No studies included heterogeneity analyses. We found no associations between effects and selected study characteristics. Study quality varied and correlated with study design. A total of 7 of 21 (33%) studies included an evaluation of costs. These studies suggested that the interventions were cost-effective but considered only direct effects. We found evidence of publication bias.

Limitations: Heterogeneity and few studies limit the possibilities of statistical inference about effectiveness.

Conclusions: Nudges may be effective at directing prescribing decisions, but effects are small and health effects and cost-effectiveness are unclear. Future nudge studies should contain a rationale for the chosen nudge, prioritize the use of high-quality study designs, and include evaluations of heterogeneity, cost-effectiveness, and health outcomes to inform decision makers. Moreover, preregistration of the protocol is warranted to limit publication bias.

Highlights: Nudging as a method to improve prescribing decisions has gained popularity during the past decade.We find that nudging can improve prescribing decisions, but effect sizes are mostly small, and the size of derived health outcomes is unclear.Most studies use feedback and error-stopping nudges to target excessive opioid or antibiotic prescribing, making heterogeneity analyses across nudge types difficult.Further research on the cost-effectiveness of nudges and generalizability is needed to guide decision makers considering nudging as a tool to guide prescribing decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在改善医生处方行为中使用劝导策略:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:目的:本文旨在:1)调查 "劝导 "的特点与效果之间的关联;2)评估文献质量;3)评估成本效益;4)撰写一份包含政策建议的综述:我们搜索了健康和社会科学数据库。我们收录了以处方决策为目标、包含劝告并以处方行为为结果的研究。我们记录了研究特点、主要结果的效应大小以及成本效益信息。我们对研究主要结果的标准化平均差进行了荟萃分析,检验了效应大小与关键干预特征之间的关联,并绘制了漏斗图以评估发表偏倚:我们确定了 21 项研究,其中包含 25 项干预措施。在 85 项结果中,共有 62 项(73%)显示出具有统计学意义的效果。平均效应大小为-0.22个标准化平均差。没有研究包含异质性分析。我们没有发现效果与选定的研究特征之间存在关联。研究质量参差不齐,并与研究设计相关。21 项研究中共有 7 项(33%)对成本进行了评估。这些研究表明干预措施具有成本效益,但只考虑了直接效果。我们发现了发表偏倚的证据:局限性:异质性和少数研究限制了对有效性进行统计推断的可能性:推导在指导处方决策方面可能有效,但效果较小,健康影响和成本效益尚不明确。未来的 "诱导 "研究应包含所选 "诱导 "的理由,优先使用高质量的研究设计,并包括对异质性、成本效益和健康结果的评估,以便为决策者提供信息。此外,有必要对研究方案进行预先登记,以限制发表偏差:我们发现,劝导可以改善处方决策,但效果规模大多较小,衍生健康结果的规模也不明确。大多数研究使用反馈和阻止错误的劝导来针对阿片类药物或抗生素的过度处方,因此很难对不同劝导类型进行异质性分析。需要进一步研究劝导的成本效益和可推广性,为考虑将劝导作为处方决策指导工具的决策者提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1