IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i6p688-702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Peter H. Schwartz
  • Susan M. Perkins
  • Karen K. Schmidt
  • Paul F. Muriello
  • Sandra Althouse
  • Susan M. Rawl

Abstract

Background. Guidelines recommend that patient decision aids should provide quantitative information about probabilities of potential outcomes, but the impact of this information is unknown. Behavioral economics suggests that patients confused by quantitative information could benefit from a “nudge†towards one option. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to estimate the effect sizes of presenting quantitative information and a nudge. Methods. Primary care patients (n = 213) eligible for colorectal cancer screening viewed basic screening information and were randomized to view (a) quantitative information (quantitative module), (b) a nudge towards stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (nudge module), (c) neither a nor b, or (d) both a and b. Outcome measures were perceived colorectal cancer risk, screening intent, preferred test, and decision conflict, measured before and after viewing the decision aid, and screening behavior at 6 months. Results. Patients viewing the quantitative module were more likely to be screened than those who did not ( P = 0.012). Patients viewing the nudge module had a greater increase in perceived colorectal cancer risk than those who did not ( P = 0.041). Those viewing the quantitative module had a smaller increase in perceived risk than those who did not ( P = 0.046), and the effect was moderated by numeracy. Among patients with high numeracy who did not view the nudge module, those who viewed the quantitative module had a greater increase in intent to undergo FIT ( P = 0.028) than did those who did not. Limitations. The limitations of this study were the limited sample size and single healthcare system. Conclusions. Adding quantitative information to a decision aid increased uptake of colorectal cancer screening, while adding a nudge to undergo FIT did not increase uptake. Further research on quantitative information in decision aids is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter H. Schwartz & Susan M. Perkins & Karen K. Schmidt & Paul F. Muriello & Sandra Althouse & Susan M. Rawl, 2017. "Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 688-702, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:688-702
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17698678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17698678
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17698678?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Célia Berchi & Maximilien Nayaradou & Olivier Dejardin & Guy Launoy, 2010. "Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization," Post-Print halshs-00478487, HAL.
    2. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mizota, Yuri & Yamamoto, Seiichiro, 2021. "Rainbow of KIBOU project: Effectiveness of invitation materials for improving cancer screening rate using social marketing and behavioral economics approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira, 2020. "The Effect of Binge-Watching on the Subscription of Video on Demand: Results from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1337-1360, December.
    2. Vaidya, Shalvaree, 2021. "The impact of premium subsidies on health plan choices in Switzerland: Who responds to the incentives set by in-kind as opposed to cash transfers?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(6), pages 675-684.
    3. Dwayne Jefferson & Frederick Paige & Philip Agee & France Jackson, 2021. "User Experience of Green Building Certification Resources: EarthCraft Multifamily," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Kılkış, Şiir & Ulpiani, Giulia & Vetters, Nadja, 2024. "Visions for climate neutrality and opportunities for co-learning in European cities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    5. Kim Kaleva Kaivanto & Peng Zhang, 2016. "A Resolution of Emissions-Estimate Confusion for Informing Flight Choice," Working Papers 115969274, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    6. Karen S Hamrick & Margaret Andrews, 2016. "SNAP Participants’ Eating Patterns over the Benefit Month: A Time Use Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    8. Wansink, Brian, 2017. "Healthy Profits: An Interdisciplinary Retail Framework that Increases the Sales of Healthy Foods," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 65-78.
    9. James F. M. Cornwell & David H. Krantz, 2014. "Public policy for thee, but not for me: Varying the grammatical person of public policy justifications influences their support," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 433-444, September.
    10. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    11. Simon J. Blanchard & Remi Trudel, 2024. "Life insurance, loss aversion, and temporal orientation: a field experiment and replication with young adults," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 575-587, December.
    12. Dellaert, B.G.C. & Johnson, E.J. & Baker, T., 2019. "Choice Architecture for Healthier Insurance Choices: Ordering and Partitioning Can Improve Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2019-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Ellen R. K. Evers & Yoel Inbar & Irene Blanken & Linda D. Oosterwijk, 2017. "When Do People Prefer Carrots to Sticks? A Robust “Matching Effect” in Policy Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4261-4276, December.
    14. Rebekah Hall & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Willie Hamilton & Anne E. Spencer, 2022. "Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 269-285, May.
    15. Michael W. Mehaffy, 2018. "Neighborhood “Choice Architecture”: A New Strategy for Lower-Emissions Urban Planning?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 113-127.
    16. Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "Designing for more environmentally friendly tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    17. Andor, Mark Andreas & Götte, Lorenz & Price, Michael Keith & Schulze Tilling, Anna & Tomberg, Lukas, 2023. "Differences in how and why social comparisons and real-time feedback impact resource use: Evidence from a field experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 1059, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:433-444 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    20. Mele, Cristina & Russo Spena, Tiziana & Kaartemo, Valtteri & Marzullo, Maria Luisa, 2021. "Smart nudging: How cognitive technologies enable choice architectures for value co-creation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 949-960.
    21. Stopper, Therese, 2022. "Nudging als Instrument zur Förderung nachhaltigen Konsums – eine konzeptionelle Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der empirischen Literatur," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 201-217.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:688-702. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.