Nudges for Research Participation

Overseen By Molly Volkmar

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: University of Utah

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

120 Participants Needed

Trial Summary

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications, but it seems unlikely since the study involves minimal risk interviews with healthy adults.

What data supports the effectiveness of the treatment Recruitment Nudges?

Research shows that behavioral nudges can help increase enrollment in clinical trials. For example, a study found that using nudges in online ads doubled the enrollment rate of pregnant women in a smoking cessation trial. This suggests that similar strategies might be effective in other research settings. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Is the use of behavioral nudges for research participation safe for humans?

The research on behavioral nudges for research participation, such as in critical care trials, shows no evidence of undue or unjust inducement, suggesting they are generally safe for humans. ^{4 5 6 7 8}

How does the treatment 'Recruitment Nudges' differ from other treatments for research participation?

Recruitment Nudges are unique because they use behavioral strategies to subtly influence people's decisions to participate in research without changing their options or financial incentives. This approach focuses on changing the environment in which decisions are made, making it different from traditional methods that might rely on direct incentives or restrictions. ^{5 6 9 10 11}

What is the purpose of this trial?

The goal of this clinical trial is to examine the effect of using behavioral nudges in recruitment into a minimal risk interview study among healthy adult volunteers. Individuals will be randomized to receive recruitment materials that do or do not contain a set of behavioral nudges. Researchers will compare the effect on participation in an interview study (primary outcome) between these conditions.

Research Team

Kimberly Kaphingst, ScD

Principal Investigator

University of Utah

Eligibility Criteria

This trial is for English-speaking adults aged 18 or older. It's designed to see how well different recruitment strategies work when asking people to join a low-risk health research study.

Inclusion Criteria

English-speaking

Exclusion Criteria

Not applicable.

Timeline

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Recruitment

Participants receive recruitment materials with or without behavioral nudges and decide on participation

4 weeks

Remote interaction

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for engagement with outreach materials and agreement to participate in the interview study

4 weeks

Treatment Details

Interventions

• Recruitment Nudges

Trial Overview The study is testing the effectiveness of 'recruitment nudges'—subtle changes in the way invitations are presented—to encourage participation in an interview-based research project.

Participant Groups

Group I: Recruitment nudges Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Participants in this arm will receive recruitment materials that contain a set of behavioral nudges

Group II: Recruitment control Active Control 1 Intervention

Participants in this arm will receive standard recruitment materials

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

University of Utah

Lead Sponsor

Trials

1,169

Recruited

1,623,000+

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)

Collaborator

Trials

394

Recruited

404,000+

Findings from Research

In a pilot study with 213 primary care patients, providing quantitative information about colorectal cancer screening significantly increased the likelihood of patients getting screened compared to those who did not receive this information.

While a nudge towards stool testing (FIT) increased perceived risk of colorectal cancer, it did not lead to a higher screening uptake, suggesting that simply nudging patients may not be as effective as providing clear quantitative data.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Schwartz, PH., Perkins, SM., Schmidt, KK., et al.[2018]

This study will evaluate the effectiveness of both clinician- and patient-directed nudges to increase the completion of serious illness conversations (SICs) among high-risk cancer patients, involving 166 clinicians and approximately 5500 patients.

The primary outcome will be the time to SIC documentation, with secondary outcomes including palliative care referrals and the use of aggressive end-of-life care, aiming to improve patient outcomes and promote health equity.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Takvorian, SU., Bekelman, J., Beidas, RS., et al.[2022]

A behavioral nudge survey aimed at improving enrollment in a critical care randomized controlled trial did not significantly increase enrollment rates compared to standard informed consent procedures, with 29% enrollment in the nudge group versus 34% in the standard group among 182 surrogate decision-makers.

The study found that white surrogate decision-makers were more likely to enroll patients than non-white decision-makers, and those who perceived a higher risk of participation were less likely to enroll, indicating potential demographic and perception-related factors influencing enrollment in critical care trials.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials. Krutsinger, DC., O'Leary, KL., Ellenberg, SS., et al.[2021]

In a study involving 88 early childhood education centers, incorporating nudge strategies into workshop invitations did not significantly increase registration rates compared to generic invitations, with only 25% of the intervention group registering versus 20% in the control group.

The study found no significant differences in invitation recall or acceptability between the two groups, suggesting that low-intensity behavioral nudges may not be effective in promoting participation in nutrition education workshops.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Impact of Nudge Strategies on Nutrition Education Participation in Child Care: Randomized Controlled Trial. Grady, A., Barnes, C., Lum, M., et al.[2021]

Nudges can effectively change behavior by modifying the decision-making environment without limiting options or altering financial incentives, as shown in a review of 174 articles across various disciplines.

Nudges that automate decision-making processes have a greater average effect size (Cohen's d of 0.193) compared to other types of nudges, highlighting the importance of understanding which nudges are most effective for future research.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nudging: Progress to date and future directions. Beshears, J., Kosowsky, H.[2021]

The concept of 'nudgeability' suggests that people's responsiveness to nudges is influenced more by their personal preferences than by the transparency of the nudge or their thinking mode.

The study indicates that individuals cannot be nudged into choices they fundamentally do not want, which implies that concerns about the legitimacy of nudging as a policy tool may be overstated.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nudgeability: Mapping Conditions of Susceptibility to Nudge Influence. de Ridder, D., Kroese, F., van Gestel, L.[2022]

References

1. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A comparison of small monetary incentives to convert survey non-respondents: a randomized control trial. [2021]

2. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial. [2018]

3. England pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial. [2022]

4. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials. [2021]

5. Switzerland pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Using Behavioral Nudges to Engage Pregnant Women in a Smoking Cessation Trial: An Online Field Quasi-Experiment. [2020]

6. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Impact of Nudge Strategies on Nutrition Education Participation in Child Care: Randomized Controlled Trial. [2021]

7. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A nudge toward participation: Improving clinical trial enrollment with behavioral economics. [2022]

8. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Low-Cost Behavioral Nudges Increase Medicaid Take-Up Among Eligible Residents Of Oregon. [2018]

9. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nudging policymakers on gendered impacts of policy. [2023]

10. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nudging: Progress to date and future directions. [2021]

11. United States pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nudgeability: Mapping Conditions of Susceptibility to Nudge Influence. [2022]