IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i8p986-1011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Maya Fey Hallett

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

  • Trine Kjær

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

  • Line Bjørnskov Pedersen

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Maya Fey Hallett & Trine Kjær & Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, 2024. "The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians’ Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(8), pages 986-1011, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:986-1011
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241270001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241270001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241270001?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
    ---><---

    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:44:y:2024:i:8:p:986-1011. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.