Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Anaïs Tuepker2, Emily E Metcalf3, Wynn Strange3, Alan R Teo4. 1. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: bzikmund@umich.edu. 2. VA Portland Health Care System, HSR&D Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), Portland, OR, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. VA Portland Health Care System, HSR&D Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), Portland, OR, USA. 4. VA Portland Health Care System, HSR&D Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), Portland, OR, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University and Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To incorporate user-centered design processes into the refinement of nudges designed to reduce no-shows among healthcare appointments for military veterans in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). METHODS: We developed candidate nudges as brief messages based on four broad concepts in behavioral science. We then conducted iterative waves of multi-stage interviews (N = 27) that included a pile sorting task, a "think-aloud" review of each message, and prototype letter reviews. Rapid consensus analysis of each wave's feedback iteratively refined message language. RESULTS: Veterans rejected several theoretically plausible messages focusing on avoiding the burden of rescheduling missed appointments or the monetary cost of no-shows. Participants suggested framing calling to cancel an appointment as helping other veterans and emphasized a new motivational theme: expressing personal concern for the veteran. CONCLUSION: Use of iterative UCD methods allowed for early identification of both messages inappropriate for veterans and new veteran-generated nudges around non-judgmental validation that could be incorporated in the design of our pragmatic trial. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Rapid team-based qualitative analysis, iterative material design, and space in the study design to incorporate entirely new insights from participants into study materials are all approaches that can improve communications of what matters most to a specific population.
OBJECTIVE: To incorporate user-centered design processes into the refinement of nudges designed to reduce no-shows among healthcare appointments for military veterans in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). METHODS: We developed candidate nudges as brief messages based on four broad concepts in behavioral science. We then conducted iterative waves of multi-stage interviews (N = 27) that included a pile sorting task, a "think-aloud" review of each message, and prototype letter reviews. Rapid consensus analysis of each wave's feedback iteratively refined message language. RESULTS: Veterans rejected several theoretically plausible messages focusing on avoiding the burden of rescheduling missed appointments or the monetary cost of no-shows. Participants suggested framing calling to cancel an appointment as helping other veterans and emphasized a new motivational theme: expressing personal concern for the veteran. CONCLUSION: Use of iterative UCD methods allowed for early identification of both messages inappropriate for veterans and new veteran-generated nudges around non-judgmental validation that could be incorporated in the design of our pragmatic trial. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Rapid team-based qualitative analysis, iterative material design, and space in the study design to incorporate entirely new insights from participants into study materials are all approaches that can improve communications of what matters most to a specific population.
Authors: Judith A Long; Erica C Jahnle; Diane M Richardson; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Katherine Anne Comtois; Amanda H Kerbrat; Christopher R DeCou; David C Atkins; Justine J Majeres; Justin C Baker; Richard K Ries Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Andrew S Hwang; Steven J Atlas; Patrick Cronin; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Sachin J Shah; Wei He; Clemens S Hong Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Katherine L Milkman; John Beshears; James J Choi; David Laibson; Brigitte C Madrian Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Molly Maher; Elizabeth Kaziunas; Mark Ackerman; Holly Derry; Rachel Forringer; Kristen Miller; Dennis O'Reilly; Larry C An; Muneesh Tewari; David A Hanauer; Sung Won Choi Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Michael Hallsworth; Dan Berry; Michael Sanders; Anna Sallis; Dominic King; Ivo Vlaev; Ara Darzi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240