Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187160›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2023

Effectiveness of non-interruptive nudge interventions in electronic health records to improve the delivery of care in hospitals: a systematic review.

Magdalena Z Raban, Peter J Gates, Sarah Gamboa, Gabriela Gonzalez, Johanna I Westbrook

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Nudge for governmental change in health policy.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. A Hand to Hold.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pitfalls of reasoning in hospital-based transfusion medicine.Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Magdalena Z RabanCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6995-2849
Peter J GatesCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6220-4007
Sarah GamboaCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Gabriela GonzalezCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Johanna I WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1083-8192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the application of nudges within electronic health records (EHRs) and their effects on inpatient care delivery, and identify design features that support effective decision-making without the use of interruptive alerts. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo (in January 2022) for randomized controlled trials, interrupted time-series and before-after studies reporting effects of nudge interventions embedded in hospital EHRs to improve care. Nudge interventions were identified at full-text review, using a pre-existing classification. Interventions using interruptive alerts were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) for non-randomized studies or the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group methodology for randomized trials. Study results were summarized narratively.

resultsWe included 18 studies evaluating 24 EHR nudges. An improvement in care delivery was reported for 79.2% (n = 19; 95% CI, 59.5-90.8) of nudges. Nudges applied were from 5 of 9 possible nudge categories: change choice defaults (n = 9), make information visible (n = 6), change range or composition of options (n = 5), provide reminders (n = 2), and change option-related effort (n = 2). Only one study had a low risk of bias. Nudges targeted ordering of medications, laboratory tests, imaging, and appropriateness of care. Few studies evaluated long-term effects. DISCUSSION: Nudges in EHRs can improve care delivery. Future work could explore a wider range of nudges and evaluate long-term effects.

conclusionNudges can be implemented in EHRs to improve care delivery within current system capabilities; however, as with all digital interventions, careful consideration of the sociotechnical system is crucial to enhance their effectiveness.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHospitalizationHospitalsHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparationsbehavioralcomputerizedeconomicsmedical informaticsmedical records systemsquality of health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37187160
PMCPMC10280359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.