Literature DB >> 32440570

Using Nudges to Enhance Clinicians' Implementation of Shared Decision Making With Patient Decision Aids.

Kristin M Kostick1, Meredith Trejo1, Robert J Volk2, Jerry D Estep3, J S Blumenthal-Barby1.   

Abstract

Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.
© The Author(s) 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  behavioral economics; decision aids; implementation; shared decision making

Year:  2020        PMID: 32440570      PMCID: PMC7227151          DOI: 10.1177/2381468320915906

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MDM Policy Pract        ISSN: 2381-4683


  41 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

Authors:  R E Glasgow; T M Vogt; S M Boles
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Social influence: compliance and conformity.

Authors:  Robert B Cialdini; Noah J Goldstein
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 3.  A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders.

Authors:  Jennifer Plebani Lussier; Sarah H Heil; Joan A Mongeon; Gary J Badger; Stephen T Higgins
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 4.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

Authors:  Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-12

5.  Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype-activation on action.

Authors:  J A Bargh; M Chen; L Burrows
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1996-08

6.  Barriers and facilitators to routine distribution of patient decision support interventions: a preliminary study in community-based primary care settings.

Authors:  Visith Uy; Suepattra G May; Caroline Tietbohl; Dominick L Frosch
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-01-02       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles.

Authors:  Grace A Lin; Meghan Halley; Katharine A S Rendle; Caroline Tietbohl; Suepattra G May; Laurel Trujillo; Dominick L Frosch
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Framing Financial Incentives to Increase Physical Activity Among Overweight and Obese Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Mitesh S Patel; David A Asch; Roy Rosin; Dylan S Small; Scarlett L Bellamy; Jack Heuer; Susan Sproat; Chris Hyson; Nancy Haff; Samantha M Lee; Lisa Wesby; Karen Hoffer; David Shuttleworth; Devon H Taylor; Victoria Hilbert; Jingsan Zhu; Lin Yang; Xingmei Wang; Kevin G Volpp
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Patient Decision Aids to Engage Adults in Treatment or Screening Decisions.

Authors:  Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina B Lewis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

Authors:  Karine Gravel; France Légaré; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  2 in total

1.  Applying user-centered design in the development of nudges for a pragmatic trial to reduce no-shows among veterans.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Anaïs Tuepker; Emily E Metcalf; Wynn Strange; Alan R Teo
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2021-10-23

2.  A principal components analysis of factors associated with successful implementation of an LVAD decision support tool.

Authors:  Kristin M Kostick; Meredith Trejo; Arvind Bhimaraj; Andrew Civitello; Jonathan Grinstein; Douglas Horstmanshof; Ulrich P Jorde; Matthias Loebe; Mandeep R Mehra; Nasir Z Sulemanjee; Vinay Thohan; Barry H Trachtenberg; Nir Uriel; Robert J Volk; Jerry D Estep; J S Blumenthal-Barby
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 2.796

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.