IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i8p986-1011.html

The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians’ Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Maya Fey Hallett

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

  • Trine Kjær

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

  • Line Bjørnskov Pedersen

    (Danish Center for Health Economics (DaCHE), Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark)

Abstract

Background Nudges have been proposed as a method of influencing prescribing decisions. Purpose The purpose of this article is to 1) investigate associations between nudges’ characteristics and effectiveness, 2) assess the quality of the literature, 3) assess cost-effectiveness, and 4) create a synthesis with policy recommendations. Methods We searched health and social science databases. We included studies that targeted prescribing decisions, included a nudge, and used prescribing behavior as the outcome. We recorded study characteristics, effect size of the primary outcomes, and information on cost-effectiveness. We performed a meta-analysis on the standardized mean difference of the studies’ primary outcomes, tested for associations between effect size and key intervention characteristics, and created a funnel plot evaluating publication bias. Synthesis We identified 21 studies containing 25 nudges. In total, 62 of 85 (73%) outcomes showed a statistically significant effect. The average effect size was −0.22 standardized mean difference. No studies included heterogeneity analyses. We found no associations between effects and selected study characteristics. Study quality varied and correlated with study design. A total of 7 of 21 (33%) studies included an evaluation of costs. These studies suggested that the interventions were cost-effective but considered only direct effects. We found evidence of publication bias. Limitations Heterogeneity and few studies limit the possibilities of statistical inference about effectiveness. Conclusions Nudges may be effective at directing prescribing decisions, but effects are small and health effects and cost-effectiveness are unclear. Future nudge studies should contain a rationale for the chosen nudge, prioritize the use of high-quality study designs, and include evaluations of heterogeneity, cost-effectiveness, and health outcomes to inform decision makers. Moreover, preregistration of the protocol is warranted to limit publication bias. Highlights Nudging as a method to improve prescribing decisions has gained popularity during the past decade. We find that nudging can improve prescribing decisions, but effect sizes are mostly small, and the size of derived health outcomes is unclear. Most studies use feedback and error-stopping nudges to target excessive opioid or antibiotic prescribing, making heterogeneity analyses across nudge types difficult. Further research on the cost-effectiveness of nudges and generalizability is needed to guide decision makers considering nudging as a tool to guide prescribing decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Maya Fey Hallett & Trine Kjær & Line Bjørnskov Pedersen, 2024. "The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians’ Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(8), pages 986-1011, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:986-1011
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241270001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241270001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241270001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0234149 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Hummel, Dennis & Maedche, Alexander, 2019. "How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 47-58.
    3. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Plambeck, Johannes & Puleri, Dorian & Gonzalez, Victor, 2025. "Optimising HCP Sample Allocation in Pharma: Combining Non-Linear Ensemble Learning, Spatial Lags, and Integer Programming," SocArXiv n4ybq_v2, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bauer, Jan M. & Aarestrup, Simon C. & Hansen, Pelle G. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Diane Pelly & Orla Doyle, 2022. "Nudging in the workplace: increasing participation in employee EDI wellness events," Working Papers 202208, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Antinyan, Armenak & Asatryan, Zareh, 2019. "Nudging for tax compliance: A meta-analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-055, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Rotem Dvir, 2024. "Nudging citizens co-production: Assessing multiple behavioral strategies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(4), pages 719-743, December.
    5. Tomas Folke & Giulia Bertoldo & Darlene D’Souza & Sonia Alì & Federica Stablum & Kai Ruggeri, 2021. "Boosting promotes advantageous risk-taking," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Isabella Seeber & Carolin Fleischmann & Peter Cardon & Jolanta Aritz, 2024. "Fostering Psychological Safety in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Team-Based Interventions and Digital Reminder Nudges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 1405-1427, December.
    7. Nicholls, Nicky, 2023. "Procrastination and grades: Can students be nudged towards better outcomes?," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    8. Meier, Johanna & Andor, Mark A. & Doebbe, Friederike C. & Haddaway, Neal R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Rabab Ali Abumalloh & Osama Halabi & Raian Ali & Dena Al-Thani, 2025. "Nudging Techniques: Design, Theoretical Grounds, and Ethical View," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(2), pages 10356-10388, June.
    10. Murphy, Robert P. & Taaffe, Carol & Byrne, Molly & Delaney, Liam & Lunn, Peter D. & Robertson, Deirdre A. & Ryan, Helen & Wood, Alex M., 2024. "Improving the management of hospital waiting lists by using nudges in letters: A Randomised controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    11. Thommes, Kirsten & Mehic, Miro, 2026. "The persistence of default effects: Evidence from CO2 offsetting in cargo transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    12. Edmond Daramy-Williams & Jillian Anable & Susan Grant-Muller, 2019. "Car Use: Intentional, Habitual, or Both? Insights from Anscombe and the Mobility Biography Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    13. repec:ags:aaea22:335733 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    15. Nils Engelbrecht & Tim-Benjamin Lembcke & Alfred Benedikt Brendel & Kilian Bizer & Lutz M. Kolbe, 2021. "The Virtual Online Supermarket: An Open-Source Research Platform for Experimental Consumer Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-25, April.
    16. Shumon Zihady, 2023. "Dupchanchia Model of Students' drop-out control through engagement and appreciation after Covid-19: A Behavioral Policy intervention in the field administration of Bangladesh," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 43(1), pages 136-148, May.
    17. Ina Ganguli & Marieke Huysentruyt & Chloé Le Coq, 2021. "How Do Nascent Social Entrepreneurs Respond to Rewards? A Field Experiment on Motivations in a Grant Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6294-6316, October.
    18. Cauwelier, Kathleen & Buldeo Rai, Heleen & Mommens, Koen, 2025. "Thinking fast, slow delivery: nudging sustainable choices among Gen Z consumers," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Adele Quigley-McBride & Gregory Franco & Daniel Bruce McLaren & Antonia Mantonakis & Maryanne Garry, 2018. "In the real world, people prefer their last whisky when tasting options in a long sequence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Peter Z. Schochet, 2025. "Power Analyses for Estimation of Complier Average Causal Effects Under Random Encouragement Designs in Education Research: Theory and Guidance," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 50(1), pages 44-71, February.
    21. Nikolas Neumann & Aline Mangold & Julia Schneider & Christian Wölfel, 2025. "Driving a Circular Economy: Nudging and Innovative Strategies for Promoting Post-Consumer Recycled Plastic Home-Appliances," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 1607-1629, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:986-1011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.