Nudging strategies to influence prescribers' behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions: a systematic scoping review.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Salwan Diwan,Andreas Vilhelmsson,Axel Wolf,Pether Jildenstål
{"title":"Nudging strategies to influence prescribers' behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions: a systematic scoping review.","authors":"Salwan Diwan,Andreas Vilhelmsson,Axel Wolf,Pether Jildenstål","doi":"10.1177/03000605241272733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nThis systematic scoping review aimed to map the literature on the use of various nudging strategies to influence prescriber behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions across diverse healthcare settings.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nA systematic database search was conducted using seven electronic databases. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 2234 articles were identified, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria. Two independent dimensions were used to describe nudging strategies according to user action and the timing of their implementation.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nSix nudging strategies were identified. The most common strategy was default choices, followed by increasing salience of information or incentives and providing feedback. Moreover, 32 studies used the electronic health record as an implementation method, and 29 reported significant results. Most of the effective interventions were multicomponent interventions (i.e., combining nudge strategies and non-nudge components).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nMost nudging strategies used a passive approach, such as defaulting prescriptions to generics and requiring no action from the prescriber. Although reported as effective, this approach often operates under the prescriber's radar. Future research should explore the ethical implications of nudging strategies.INPLASY registration number: 202420082.","PeriodicalId":16129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605241272733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This systematic scoping review aimed to map the literature on the use of various nudging strategies to influence prescriber behavior toward reducing opioid prescriptions across diverse healthcare settings. METHODS A systematic database search was conducted using seven electronic databases. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 2234 articles were identified, 35 of which met the inclusion criteria. Two independent dimensions were used to describe nudging strategies according to user action and the timing of their implementation. RESULTS Six nudging strategies were identified. The most common strategy was default choices, followed by increasing salience of information or incentives and providing feedback. Moreover, 32 studies used the electronic health record as an implementation method, and 29 reported significant results. Most of the effective interventions were multicomponent interventions (i.e., combining nudge strategies and non-nudge components). CONCLUSIONS Most nudging strategies used a passive approach, such as defaulting prescriptions to generics and requiring no action from the prescriber. Although reported as effective, this approach often operates under the prescriber's radar. Future research should explore the ethical implications of nudging strategies.INPLASY registration number: 202420082.
影响处方者减少阿片类药物处方行为的激励策略:系统性范围综述。
目的本系统性范围界定综述旨在对不同医疗机构中使用各种劝导策略影响处方者减少阿片类药物处方行为的文献进行梳理。方法使用七个电子数据库进行了系统性数据库检索。仅收录以英文发表的文章。共发现 2234 篇文章,其中 35 篇符合纳入标准。根据用户行动及其实施时间,使用两个独立维度来描述引导策略。最常见的策略是默认选择,其次是增加信息或激励措施的显著性以及提供反馈。此外,有 32 项研究使用电子健康记录作为实施方法,其中 29 项报告了显著的结果。结论大多数劝导策略采用被动方法,如默认处方为非专利药,不要求处方者采取任何行动。尽管据报道这种方法很有效,但它往往在处方者的眼皮底下运作。未来的研究应探讨诱导策略的伦理意义。INPLASY 注册号:202420082。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: _Journal of International Medical Research_ is a leading international journal for rapid publication of original medical, pre-clinical and clinical research, reviews, preliminary and pilot studies on a page charge basis. As a service to authors, every article accepted by peer review will be given a full technical edit to make papers as accessible and readable to the international medical community as rapidly as possible. Once the technical edit queries have been answered to the satisfaction of the journal, the paper will be published and made available freely to everyone under a creative commons licence. Symposium proceedings, summaries of presentations or collections of medical, pre-clinical or clinical data on a specific topic are welcome for publication as supplements. Print ISSN: 0300-0605
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信