ArticlePloS one2018
Perspectives on using decision-making nudges in physician-patient communications.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nudge strategies for behavior-based prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: A scoping review and ethical assessment.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Pooled it
- A combined behavioural economics- and simulation-based medical education to promote effectiveness among medical residents in coping with workplace violence in Northern China: a quasi-experimental study.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Medical Students' Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Persuasion of Patients by Physicians: Clarifying the Ethics of Shared Decision Making.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Critical Care Physicians' Perspectives on Nudging in Communication.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Individualized clinical decisions within standard-of-care pragmatic clinical trials: Implications for consent.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Neuroethics across the Disorders of Consciousness Care Continuum.Seminars in neurology · 2022Review
- Article
- Shared Decision Making in Patients With Suspected Uncomplicated Ureterolithiasis: A Decision Aid Development Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2020Article
- Willingness of women with early estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer to take adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Patient Preferences as Guidance for Information Framing in a Medical Shared Decision-Making Approach: The Bridge Between Nudging and Patient Preferences.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Review
- The War on Diabetic Retinopathy: Where Are We Now?Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.