Shingo Fukuma1, Shusaku Sasaki2, Masataka Taguri3, Rei Goto4, Toshihiro Misumi5, Yusuke Saigusa5, Yusuke Tsugawa6,7. 1. Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan fukuma.shingo.3m@kyoto-u.ac.jp. 2. Faculty of Economics, Tohoku Gakuin University, Miyagi, Japan. 3. Department of Data Science, Yokohama City University School of Data Science, Yokohama, Japan. 4. Graduate School of Business Administration, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although CKD screening programs have been provided in many settings, little is known as to how we can effectively translate those screening programs into improved health. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial on national health screening for CKD in Japan between April 2018 and March 2019. A total of 4011 participants in CKD screening programs aged 40-63 years were randomly assigned to two interventions or the control, with a ratio of 2:2:1, respectively: (1) the nudge-based letter that contained a message on the basis of behavioral economics, (2) the clinical letter including general information about CKD risks, and (3) the control (informed only of the screening results). The main outcome was adherence to a recommended physician visit within 6 months of the intervention. The secondary outcomes were eGFR, proteinuria, and BP 1 year after the intervention. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the probability of undergoing a recommended physician visit was higher among participants who received the nudge-based letter (19.7% for the intervention group versus 15.8% for the control; difference, +3.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02) and the clinical letter (19.7% versus 15.8%; difference, +3.9 pp; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02). We found no evidence that interventions were associated with improved early health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioral economics intervention tested in this large RCT had limited effect on changing behavior or improving health outcomes. Although the approach has promise, this study demonstrates the challenge of developing behavioral interventions that improve the effectiveness of CKD screening programs.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN000035230.
BACKGROUND: Although CKD screening programs have been provided in many settings, little is known as to how we can effectively translate those screening programs into improved health. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial on national health screening for CKD in Japan between April 2018 and March 2019. A total of 4011 participants in CKD screening programs aged 40-63 years were randomly assigned to two interventions or the control, with a ratio of 2:2:1, respectively: (1) the nudge-based letter that contained a message on the basis of behavioral economics, (2) the clinical letter including general information about CKD risks, and (3) the control (informed only of the screening results). The main outcome was adherence to a recommended physician visit within 6 months of the intervention. The secondary outcomes were eGFR, proteinuria, and BP 1 year after the intervention. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the probability of undergoing a recommended physician visit was higher among participants who received the nudge-based letter (19.7% for the intervention group versus 15.8% for the control; difference, +3.9 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02) and the clinical letter (19.7% versus 15.8%; difference, +3.9 pp; 95% CI, +0.8 to +7.0; P=0.02). We found no evidence that interventions were associated with improved early health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioral economics intervention tested in this large RCT had limited effect on changing behavior or improving health outcomes. Although the approach has promise, this study demonstrates the challenge of developing behavioral interventions that improve the effectiveness of CKD screening programs.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN000035230.
Authors: Daniella Meeker; Jeffrey A Linder; Craig R Fox; Mark W Friedberg; Stephen D Persell; Noah J Goldstein; Tara K Knight; Joel W Hay; Jason N Doctor Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cornelis Boersma; Ron T Gansevoort; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Sipke T Visser; Flip F J van Toly; Lolkje T W de Jong-van den Berg; Paul E de Jong; Maarten J Postma Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Anuja Shah; Linda F Fried; Shu-Cheng Chen; Yang Qiu; Suying Li; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Keith C Norris; Adam T Whaley-Connell; Peter A McCullough; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 8.860