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

Maya Fey Hallett, Trine Kjær and Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2024, vol. 44, issue 8, 986-1011

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.

Keywords: nudging; effect of nudges; prescribing decisions; heterogeneity effects; cost effectiveness; publication bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241270001 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:986-1011

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241270001

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().