ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2025
Promoting workers' appointments at follow-up examinations through a nudge-based notification.
Article in Environmental and occupational health practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bridging the screening-treatment gap in hypertension.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Our previous study found that occupational health staff and workers generally prefer a nudge-based notification for follow-up examinations. However, it did not assess their impact on actual screening behaviors. This practice aimed to demonstrate whether the notification could improve the appointment rates of follow-up examinations with abnormal findings. Methods: The notification specified the department where follow-up examinations should be conducted and instructed recipients to report their appointment status. Appointment data from workers of a Japanese transportation company who received a notification in June 2024 were analyzed. Results: A total of 91 workers received notifications. Among them, 53.3% scheduled appointments by the end of July, exceeding the follow-up examination attendance rate of the previous year (43.8%), even without reminder notifications. The age of workers who scheduled appointments (mean 56.2; standard deviation, 8.8 years) was higher than that of workers who did not report appointments (mean 46.2; standard deviation, 11.8 years: Conclusions: Workers who reported their appointment status are expected to have a high probability of undergoing follow-up examinations. Therefore, the notification may have contributed to improved attendance. This improvement is believed to result from the nudges aligning with the cognitive ease and present biases of the workers. This practice has several strengths, including high cost-effectiveness and transparency under nudging conditions. To further enhance this rate, sending reminder notifications integrating several nudges is necessary.
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.