ReviewHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2026
Nudging to increase the uptake of cancer screening: scoping review of empirical studies.
Review in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer screening is critical for early detection of cancer, yet achieving high participation rates remains a substantial challenge. This study aims to examine empirically tested nudging interventions and their effects on increasing cancer screening uptake. Method: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Empirical studies on nudging to enhance cancer screening uptake, published from January 2008 to August 2025, were retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and EBSCO (including Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and MEDLINE) databases/search platforms. A complementary risk of bias analysis was performed for the selected studies. Results: Fifteen articles were included in this review. Most studies were carried out in real-life settings, with health system providers or professionals delivering nudges. The most common nudging techniques involved reminders combined with information provision. Results varied widely, ranging from no statistically significant effect to increases of several tens of percentage points, with a maximum increase of 65.1 percentage points. Randomised controlled trials with acceptable risk of bias demonstrated diverse outcomes, while other studies lacking a controlled approach reported positive results. Interventions that modified decision structures-such as altering options, adjusting consequences, or reducing effort-were the most effective and produced the largest increases. Intervention effects tended to be higher when resource-demanding components were included and/or healthcare professionals were involved. Conclusions: The review indicates that nudge interventions can positively influence cancer screening uptake. Further research is needed to explore various nudging strategies across diverse settings, particularly through rigorous randomised controlled trials.
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.