How to help gastroenterology patients help themselves: leveraging insights from behavioral economics

A randomized trial of mailed outreach with behavioral economic interventions to improve liver cancer surveillance

BACKGROUND

Surveillance rates for HCC remain limited in patients with cirrhosis. We evaluated whether opt-out mailed outreach increased uptake with or without a $20 unconditional incentive.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in an urban academic health system including adult patients with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, at least 1 visit to a specialty practice in the past 2 years and no surveillance in the last 7 months. Patients were randomized in a 1:2:2 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) a mailed letter with a signed order for an ultrasound, or (3) a mailed letter with an order and a $20 unconditional incentive. The main outcome was the proportion with completion of ultrasound within 6 months.

RESULTS

Among the 562 patients included, the mean age was 62.1 (SD 11.1); 56.8% were male, 51.1% had Medicare, and 40.6% were Black. At 6 months, 27.6% (95% CI: 19.5-35.7) completed ultrasound in the Usual care arm, 54.5% (95% CI: 47.9-61.0) in the Letter + Order arm, and 54.1% (95% CI: 47.5-60.6) in the Letter + Order + Incentive arm. There was a significant increase in the Letter + Order arm compared to Usual care (absolute difference of 26.9%; 95% CI: 16.5-37.3; p<0.001), but no significant increase in the Letter + Order + Incentive arm compared to Letter + Order (absolute difference of -0.4; 95% CI: -9.7 to 8.8; p=0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an increase in HCC surveillance from mailed outreach with opt-out framing and a signed order slip, but no increase in response to the financial incentive.

Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis

Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), including screening for its precursor Barrett's esophagus (BE), has the potential to reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This literature review aimed to explore professionals' views on the justification for EAC screening. A systematic search of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo, from January 1, 2000 to September 22, 2022, identified 5 original studies and 63 expert opinion articles reporting professionals' perspectives on EAC screening. Included articles were qualitatively analyzed using the framework method, which was deductively led by modernized screening principles. The analyses showed that many professionals are optimistic about technological advancements in BE detection and treatment. However, views on whether the societal burden of EAC merits screening were contradictory. In addition, knowledge of the long-term benefits and risks of EAC screening is still considered insufficient. There is no consensus on who to screen, how often to screen, which screening test to use, and how to manage non-dysplastic BE. Professionals further point out the need to develop technology that facilitates automated test sample processing and public education strategies that avoid causing disproportionately high cancer worry and social stigma. In conclusion, modernized screening principles are currently insufficiently fulfilled to justify widespread screening for EAC. Results from future clinical screening trials and risk prediction modeling studies may shift professionals' thoughts regarding justification for EAC screening.

Effect of a Default Order vs an Alert in the Electronic Health Record on Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Hospitalized Patients: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening has been recommended for patients born between 1945 and 1965, but rates remain low.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a default order within the admission order set increases HCV screening compared with a preexisting alert within the electronic health record.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 23, 2020, to April 10, 2021, at 2 hospitals within an academic medical center. Hospitalized patients born between 1945 and 1965 with no history of screening were included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

During wedge 1 (a preintervention period), both hospital sites had an electronic alert prompting clinicians to consider HCV screening. During wedge 2, the first intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to intervention (hospital B) had a default order for HCV screening implemented within the admission order set. During wedge 3, the second intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to control (hospital A) had the default order set implemented.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentage of eligible patients who received HCV screening during the hospital stay.

RESULTS

The study included 7634 patients (4405 in the control group and 3229 in the intervention group). The mean (SD) age was 65.4 (5.8) years; 4246 patients (55.6%) were men; 2142 (28.1%) were Black and 4625 (60.6%) were White; and 2885 (37.8%) had commercial insurance and 3950 (51.7%) had Medicare. The baseline rate of HCV screening in wedge 1 was 585 of 1560 patients (37.5% [95% CI, 35.1%-40.0%]) in hospital A and 309 of 1003 patients (30.8% [95% CI, 27.9%-33.7%]) in hospital B. The main adjusted model showed an increase of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.7-33.8) percentage points in test completion in the intervention group compared with the control group (P <. 001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial found that embedding HCV screening as a default order in the electronic health record substantially increased ordering and completion of testing in the hospital compared with a conventional interruptive alert.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04525690.

Context-Dependent Risk & Benefit Sensitivity Mediate Judgments About Cognitive Enhancement

Opinions about cognitive enhancement (CE) are context-dependent. Prior research has demonstrated that factors like peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, competition, moral relevance, familiarity with enhancement devices, expertise, and the domain of CE to be enhanced can influence opinions. The variability and malleability of patient, expert, and public attitudes toward CE is important to describe and predict because these attitudes can influence at-home, clinical, research, and regulatory decisions. If individual preferences vary, they could influence opinions about practices and regulations due to disagreements about the desirable levels of risks and benefits. The study of attitudes about CE would benefit from psychological theories that explain judgments. In particular, we suggest that variability in risk and benefit sensitivity could psychologically mediate judgments about CE in many contexts. Drawing from prospect theory, which originated in behavioral economics, it is likely that framing effects, shifted reference points, and the tendency to weigh losses (risks) more heavily than gains (benefits) predict decisions about CE. We suggest that public policy could benefit from a shared conceptual framework, such as prospect theory, that allows us to describe and predict real-world decisions about CE by patients, experts, and the public.

The success of behavioral economics in improving patient retention within an intensive primary care practice

Background

A minority of the U.S. population comprises a majority of health care expenses. Health system interventions for high-cost populations aim to improve patient outcomes while reducing costly over-utilization. Missed and inconsistent appointments are associated with poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization. PEAK Health— Mount Sinai’s intensive primary care clinic for high-cost patients— employed a novel behavioral economics-based intervention to reduce the rate of missed appointments at the practice. Behavioral economics has accomplished numerous successes across the health care field; the effect of a clinic-based behavioral economics intervention on reducing missed appointments has yet to be assessed.

Methods

This was a single-arm, pre-post trial conducted over 1 year involving all active patients at PEAK Health. The intervention consisted of: a) clinic signage, and b) appointment reminder cards containing behavioral economics messaging designed to increase the likelihood patients would complete their subsequent visit; appointment cards (t1) were transitioned to an identical EMR template (t2) at 6 months to boost provider utilization. The primary objective, the success of scheduled appointments, was assessed with visit adherence: the proportion of successful over all scheduled appointments, excluding those cancelled or rescheduled. The secondary objective, the consistency of appointments, was assessed with a 2-month visit constancy rate: the percentage of patients with at least one successful visit every 2 months for 1 year. Both metrics were assessed via a χ² analysis and together define patient retention.

Results

The visit adherence rate increased from 74.7% at baseline to 76.5% (p = .22) during t1 and 78.0% (p = .03) during t2. The 2-month visit constancy rate increased from 59.5% at baseline to 74.3% (p = .01) post-intervention.

Conclusions

A low-resource, clinic-based behavioral economics intervention was capable of improving patient retention within a traditionally high-cost population. A renewed focus on patient retention— employing the metrics described here— could bolster chronic care efforts and significantly improve the outcomes of high-cost programs by reducing the deleterious effects of missed and inconsistent appointments.

Text Messaging and Opt-out Mailed Outreach in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Routine screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality, but screening rates fall below national targets and are particularly low in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a single text message outreach to serial text messaging and mailed fecal home test kits on colorectal cancer screening rates.

DESIGN

A two-armed randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

An urban community health center in Philadelphia. Adults aged 50-74 who were due for colorectal cancer screening had at least one visit to the practice in the previously year, and had a cell phone number recorded.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio). Individuals in the control arm were sent a simple text message reminder as per usual practice. Those in the intervention arm were sent a pre-alert text message offering the options to opt-out of receiving a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit, followed by up to three behaviorally informed text message reminders.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was participation in colorectal cancer screening at 12 weeks. The secondary outcome was the FIT kit return rate at 12 weeks.

KEY RESULTS

Four hundred forty participants were included. The mean age was 57.4 years (SD ± 6.1). 63.4% were women, 87.7% were Black, 19.1% were uninsured, and 49.6% were Medicaid beneficiaries. At 12 weeks, there was an absolute 17.3 percentage point increase in colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm (19.6%), compared to the control arm (2.3%, p < 0.001). There was an absolute 17.7 percentage point increase in FIT kit return in the intervention arm (19.1%) compared to the control arm (1.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial text messaging with opt-out mailed FIT kit outreach can substantially improve colorectal cancer screening rates in an underserved population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03479645 ).

Behavioral interventions to improve population health outreach for hepatitis C screening: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether opt out framing, messaging incorporating behavioral science concepts, or electronic communication increases the uptake of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening in patients born between 1945 and 1965.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

43 primary care practices from one academic health system (Philadelphia, PA, USA) between April 2019 and May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients born between 1945 and 1965 with no history of screening and at least two primary care visits in the two years before the enrollment period.

INTERVENTIONS

This multilevel trial was divided into two studies. Substudy A included 1656 eligible patients of 17 primary care clinicians who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a mailed letter about HCV screening (letter only), or a similar letter with a laboratory order for HCV screening (letter+order). Substudy B included the remaining 19 837 eligible patients followed by 417 clinicians. Active electronic patient portal users were randomized 1:5 to receive a mailed letter about HCV screening (letter), or an electronic patient portal message with similar content (patient portal); inactive patient portal users were mailed a letter. In a factorial design, patients in substudy B were also randomized 1:1 to receive standard content (usual care), or content based on principles of social norming, anticipated regret, reciprocity, and commitment (behavioral content).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of patients who completed HCV testing within four months.

RESULTS

21 303 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Among the 1642 patients in substudy A, 19.2% (95% confidence interval 16.5% to 21.9%) completed screening in the letter only arm and 43.1% (39.7% to 46.4%) in the letter+order arm (P<0.001). Among the 19 661 patients in substudy B, 14.6% (13.9% to 15.3%) completed screening with usual care content and 13.6% (13.0% to 14.3%) with behavioral science content (P=0.06). Among active patient portal users, 17.8% (16.0% to 19.5%) completed screening after receiving a letter and 13.8% (13.1% to 14.5%) after receiving a patient portal message (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Opt out framing and effort reduction by including a signed laboratory order with outreach increased screening for HCV. Behavioral science messaging content did not increase uptake, and mailed letters achieved a greater response rate than patient portal messages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03712553.

Effect of Text Messaging on Bowel Preparation and Appointment Attendance for Outpatient Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Outpatient colonoscopy is important for colorectal cancer screening. However, nonadherence and poor bowel preparation are common.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if an automated text messaging intervention with a focus on informational and reminder functions could improve attendance rates and bowel preparation quality for outpatient colonoscopy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted in an endoscopy center at an urban academic medical center. Adult patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy between January and September 2019 were enrolled by telephone call (early phase) or by automated text message (late phase). Data were analyzed from October 2019 to January 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

After enrollment, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to usual care (ie, written instructions and nurse telephone call) or to the intervention (ie, usual care plus an automated series of 9 educational or reminder text messages in the week prior to scheduled colonoscopy).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was appointment attendance rate with good or excellent bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included appointment attendance rate, bowel preparation quality (poor or inadequate, fair or adequate, and good or excellent), and cancellation lead time (in days).

RESULTS

Among 753 patients included and randomized in the trial (median [interquartile range] age, 56 [49-64] years; 364 [48.3%] men; 429 [57.2%] Black), 367 patients were randomized to the intervention group and 386 patients were randomized to the control group. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between groups (patients attending appointments with good or excellent bowel preparation: intervention, 195 patients [53.1%]; control, 210 patients [54.4%]; P = .73), including when stratified by early or late phase enrollment groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found no significant difference in appointment attendance or bowel preparation quality with an automated text messaging intervention compared with the usual care control. Future work could optimize the content and delivery of text message interventions or identify patient subgroups that may benefit from this approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03710213.

Text messaging and lottery incentive to improve colorectal cancer screening outreach at a community health center: A randomized controlled trial

Efforts to boost colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in underserved populations have been limited by effectiveness and scalability. We evaluate the impact of adding a lottery-based financial incentive to a text messaging program that asks patients to opt-in to receive mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). This is a two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial at a community health center in Southwest Philadelphia from April to July 2017. We included CRC screening-eligible patients between ages 50-74 years who had a mobile phone, active health insurance, and at least one visit to the clinic in the past 12 months. Patients received a text message about CRC screening with the opportunity to opt-in to receive mailed FIT. They were randomized 1:1 to the following: (1) text messaging outreach alone (text), or (2) text messaging with lottery for a 1-in-5 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion (text + lottery). The primary outcome was the percentage of patients completing the mailed FIT within 3 months of initial outreach. 281 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The FIT completion rate was 12.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-17.5%) in the text message arm and 12.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-17.5%) in the lottery arm, with no statistical difference between arms. The majority of post-intervention interview respondents found text messaging to be acceptable and convenient. Opt-in text messaging is a feasible option to promote the uptake of mailed FIT screening, but the addition of a lottery-based incentive did not improve completion rates. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03072095).

An Automated Text Message Navigation Program Improves the Show Rate for Outpatient Colonoscopy

Background. Numerous barriers to outpatient colonoscopy completion exist, causing undue procedure cancellations and poor bowel preparation. We piloted a text message navigation program to improve colonoscopy adherence. Method. We conducted a prospective study of patients aged 18 to 75 years scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy at an urban endoscopy center in April 2018. An intervention arm consisting of bidirectional, automated text messages prior to the procedure was compared with a usual care arm. We enrolled 21 intervention patients by phone and randomly selected 50 controls. Outcomes included colonoscopy appointment adherence, bowel preparation quality, and colonoscopy completion. Results. The arms had similar demographics and comorbidities. Intervention patients had higher colonoscopy appointment adherence (90% vs. 62%, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in preparation quality or procedure completeness. Poststudy surveys indicated high patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the program. Conclusion. A bidirectional, automated texting navigation program improved colonoscopy adherence rates as compared with usual care.

Effect of Sequential or Active Choice for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options.

Objective

To investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Three-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening.

Interventions

Eligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test.

Results

In total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

There was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Use of Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Mailing fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits to patients' homes has been shown to boost colorectal cancer screening rates, but response rates remain limited, and organized programs typically require repeated outreach attempts. Behavioral economics has shown that offering salient financial incentives to patients may increase participation in preventive health.

Objective

To compare the impact of different financial incentives for mailed FIT outreach.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This 4-parallel-arm randomized clinical trial included patients aged 50 to 75 years who had an established primary care clinician, at least 2 visits in the prior 2 years, and were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and not up-to-date. This study was conducted at urban primary care practices at an academic health system from December 2015 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March 2018 to September 2018.

Interventions

Eligible patients received a letter from their primary care clinician that included a mailed FIT kit and instructions for use. They were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive (1) no financial incentive; (2) an unconditional $10 incentive included with the mailing; (3) a $10 incentive conditional on FIT completion; or (4) a conditional lottery with a 1-in-10 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Fecal immunochemical test completion within 2 and 6 months of initial outreach.

Results

A total of 897 participants were randomized, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range, 52-62 years); 56% were women, and 69% were black. The overall completion rate across all arms was 23.5% at 2 months. The completion rate at 2 months was 26.0% (95% CI, 20.4%-32.3%) in the no incentive arm, 27.2% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.6%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 23.2% (95% CI, 17.9%-29.3%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 17.7% (95% CI, 13.0%-23.3%) in the lottery incentive arm. None of the arms with an incentive were statistically superior to the arm without incentive. The overall FIT completion rate across all arms was 28.9% at 6 months, and there was also no difference by arm. The completion rate at 6 months was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.6%-39.3%) in the no incentive arm, 31.7% (95% CI, 25.7%-38.2%) in the unconditional incentive arm, 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1%-33.1%) in the conditional incentive arm, and 24.3% (95% CI, 18.9%-30.5%) in the lottery incentive arm.

Conclusions and Relevance

Mailed FIT resulted in high colorectal cancer screening response rates in this population, but different forms of financial incentives of the same expected value ($10) did not incrementally increase FIT completion rates. The incentive value may have been too small or financial incentives may not be effective in this context.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02594150.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach

OBJECTIVES

METHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of those sent initial messaging through the EHR portal (9.5% opt-in versus 37.5% in opt-out).

CONCLUSIONS

.

Active Choice and Financial Incentives to Increase Rates of Screening Colonoscopy-A Randomized Controlled Trial

Behavioral economic approaches could increase uptake for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a randomized controlled trial of 2245 employees to determine whether an email containing a phone number for scheduling (control), an email with the active choice to opt in or opt out (active choice), or the active choice email plus a $100 incentive (financial incentive) increased colonoscopy completion within 3 months. Higher proportions of participants in the financial incentive group underwent screening (3.7%) than in the control (1.6%) or active choice groups (1.5%) (P = .01 and P < .01). We found no difference in uptake of screening between the active choice and control groups (P = .88). The $100 conditional incentive modestly but significantly increased colonoscopy use. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02660671.