Offering male endoscopists as decoy option to nudge disinclined women to have colorectal cancer screening

Using an inferior decoy alternative to nudge COVID-19 vaccination

Optimizing vaccine uptake is a public health challenge that requires the implementation of effective strategies. The asymmetric dominance (or decoy) effect describes the increasing likelihood of selecting an option when a clearly inferior alternative is offered. Therefore, we aimed to test the impact of offering decoy alternatives-less convenient vaccination appointments-on vaccination intentions. Participants aged 18-33 years, residing in England, and initially not intending to get vaccinated, completed three online experiments. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control or an experimental condition in each experiment. The asymmetrically dominated options were: an appointment in two weeks at a distant location (experiment 1); a later time at the participant's local GP, pharmacy, or community centre (experiment 2); and a later time at a distant location (experiment 3). The primary outcome was vaccination intention, while secondary outcomes included an active interest in reading additional information about the vaccination procedure, perceived difficulty and cognitive effort. Initial analysis revealed no evidence of an asymmetric dominance effect. However, further subgroup analysis, supported by formative research, indicated that ensuring decoy alternatives are clearly perceived as inferior could enhance the effectiveness of this approach for certain individuals.

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

•

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.

•

We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.

•

The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.

•

Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.

•

BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Evaluating behavioral economic interventions for promoting cancer screening uptake and adherence in targeted populations: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions for promoting uptake of and adherence to cancer screening recommended by guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer screening has been found to help reduce incidence of and mortality from advanced cancer. However, adherence to recommended cancer screening services is low in asymptomatic adults with average risk possibly due to systematic decision biases. The findings of this review will demonstrate whether interventions informed by behavioral economic insights can help improve uptake of and adherence to cancer screening.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider studies that meet the following inclusion criteria: experimental, quasi-experimental, and analytical observational studies that i) evaluate the effects of behavioral economic interventions in adults eligible for guideline-recommended cancer screening, and that ii) report the number/percentage of individuals who used screening services; number/percentage of individuals who completed screening recommended by guidelines; participant self-reported intentions, choice, and satisfaction regarding the use of screening services; detection rates of early-stage cancers; use of early intervention for cancers; and cancer-related mortality.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed by one reviewer. After removing duplicates, two reviewers will independently screen and appraise eligible studies according to the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Five databases will be searched: CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Sources of gray literature and registered clinical trials will also be searched for potential studies. There will be no limits to publication date or language. Data synthesis will be conducted using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis where appropriate.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42021258370.

Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials

•Behavioral economic-based interventions have been suggested to increase uptake in CRC screening programmes.•This study tested the effectiveness of six behavioral economic-based messages in two field trials.•None of the messages increased screening participation.

Barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer screening in low uptake socio-demographic groups: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise qualitative evidence related to barriers and facilitators of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (FSS) intention and uptake, particularly within low socio-demographic uptake groups. FSS uptake is lower amongst women, lower socio-economic status (SES), and Asian ethnic groups within the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America.

METHODS

A total of 12 168 articles were identified from searches of four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria included: individuals eligible to attend FSS and empirical peer-reviewed studies that analysed qualitative data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Ten qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Key barriers to FSS intention and uptake centred upon procedural anxieties. Women, including UK Asian women, reported shame and embarrassment, anticipated pain, perforation risk, and test preparation difficulties to elevate anxiety levels. Religious and cultural-influenced health beliefs amongst UK Asian groups were reported to inhibit FSS intention and uptake. Competing priorities, such as caring commitments, particularly impeded women's ability to attend certain FSS appointments. The review identified a knowledge gap concerning factors especially associated with FSS participation amongst lower SES groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies mostly focussed on barriers and facilitators of intention to participate in FSS, particularly within UK Asian groups. To determine the barriers associated with FSS uptake, and further understand how screening intention translates to behaviour, it is important that future qualitative research is equally directed towards factors associated with screening behaviour.