Soled Derek R, Cummings Christy L, Berbert Laura M, Williams David N, Feldman William B, Truog Robert D, Rubin Emily B
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Sep 2;8(9):e2531199. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.31199.
Research in behavioral economics has demonstrated that people have irrational biases, which make them susceptible to decisional shortcuts, or heuristics. The extent to which physicians consciously might use nudges to exploit these heuristics and thereby influence their patients' decision-making is unclear. In addition, ethical questions about the conscious use of nudges in medicine persist, yet little is known about how physicians experience and perceive their use.
To explore critical care physicians' perspectives on nudging to guide patients in clinical decision-making.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study involved semistructured interviews of critical care physicians at 3 tertiary care hospitals in Boston conducted between June and September 2024. Adult, pediatric, and neonatal critical care attending physicians were randomly selected to participate in the study. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis from October 2024 to February 2025.
Themes and subthemes that reflected physicians' experiences and views.
A total of 100 physicians were invited, and 54 physicians (29 [53.7%] male) were interviewed; 35 (64.8%) were adult intensivists, 13 (24.1%) were pediatric intensivists, and 6 (11.1%) were neonatal intensivists. Four main themes were identified: (1) nudging was generally seen as a positive and necessary part of medical communication; (2) physicians had ethical concerns about nudges, especially relating to autonomy; (3) nudging may be more effective and appropriate in certain situations but counter-productive in others; and (4) physicians' experiences and perspectives varied by practice setting, sex, and experience. Adult intensivists engaged in more direct recommendations and transparent nudges, while pediatric and neonatal intensivists supported more subtle nudging to foster shared decision-making. Female physicians tended to use nudges to emphasize patient and family emotional well-being, while male physicians tended to highlighted efficiency and outcomes as the primary reasons to nudge; junior physicians were more hesitant to use nudges compared with their more senior counterparts.
In this qualitative study, physicians acknowledged that it was important to use nudges when communicating with patients, while noting ethical uncertainty. These findings have implications for how nudging may be used as an effective and appropriate communication technique depending on context.
行为经济学研究表明,人们存在非理性偏差,这使他们容易采用决策捷径或启发法。医生在多大程度上可能有意识地利用助推手段来利用这些启发法,从而影响患者的决策尚不清楚。此外,关于在医学中有意使用助推手段的伦理问题依然存在,但对于医生如何体验和看待其使用情况却知之甚少。
探讨重症监护医生对利用助推手段指导患者临床决策的看法。
设计、背景和参与者:这项定性研究包括2024年6月至9月期间对波士顿3家三级医疗医院的重症监护医生进行的半结构化访谈。随机选择成人、儿科和新生儿重症监护主治医师参与研究。2024年10月至2025年2月期间,使用定性主题分析法对访谈记录进行了分析。
反映医生经历和观点的主题及子主题。
共邀请了100名医生,对54名医生(29名[53.7%]男性)进行了访谈;35名(64.8%)是成人重症监护医生,13名(24.1%)是儿科重症监护医生,6名(11.1%)是新生儿重症监护医生。确定了四个主要主题:(1)助推手段通常被视为医疗沟通中积极且必要的一部分;(2)医生对助推手段存在伦理担忧,尤其是与自主权相关的担忧;(3)助推手段在某些情况下可能更有效且合适,但在其他情况下可能适得其反;(4)医生的经历和观点因执业环境、性别和经验而异。成人重症监护医生采用更直接的建议和透明的助推手段,而儿科和新生儿重症监护医生则支持更微妙的助推手段以促进共同决策。女医生倾向于利用助推手段强调患者和家属的情感福祉,而男医生倾向于强调效率和结果是进行助推的主要原因;与资深医生相比,初级医生在使用助推手段时更加犹豫。
在这项定性研究中,医生承认在与患者沟通时使用助推手段很重要,同时指出存在伦理不确定性。这些发现对于根据具体情况如何将助推手段用作一种有效且合适的沟通技巧具有启示意义。