Evidence Hub

Effect of a behavioral nudge on adoption of an electronic health record-agnostic pulmonary embolism risk prediction tool: a pilot cluster nonrandomized controlled trial

Safiya Richardson, K. Dauber-Decker, J. Solomon, Pradeep Seelamneni, Sundas Khan, D. Barnaby, J. Chelico, Michael Qiu et al.

JAMIA Open, 2024

2 citations

Abstract

Objective

Our objective was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a behavioral nudge on adoption of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a pilot cluster nonrandomized controlled trial in 2 Emergency Departments (EDs) at a large academic healthcare system in the New York metropolitan area. We tested 2 versions of a CDS tool for pulmonary embolism (PE) risk assessment developed on a web-based electronic health record-agnostic platform. One version included behavioral nudges incorporated into the user interface.

Results

A total of 1527 patient encounters were included in the trial. The CDS tool adoption rate was 31.67%. Adoption was significantly higher for the tool that included behavioral nudges (39.11% vs 20.66%; P < .001).

Discussion

We demonstrated feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a PE risk prediction CDS tool developed using insights from behavioral science. The tool is well-positioned to be tested in a large randomized clinical trial.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05203185).

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free