As described in previous articles, adherence to cardiovascular disease treatments is an enormous problem, with average adherence rates often not exceeding 50%. Low adherence comes with big costs for the patients, their families, and society as whole. The behavioral sciences help us understand the decision-making processes that lead to non-adherence, but how can healthcare professionals use these insights to help patients make better choices?
Previous articles in this series describe the two systems of human decision making identified by prominent behavioral researchers Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky: (1) the automatic and spontaneous processes of System 1 and (2) the reflective, lazy processes of System 21 (see Article 4 << Two systems of thought: why “rational” people make “irrational” choices >>). System 1 is responsible for about 95% of all the choices that people make in their everyday lives.2 System 1 reactions are based on rules of thumb or heuristics rather than a full understanding of the situation followed by a careful assessment of risks and benefits. As a result, System 1 thinking is often prone to previously discussed biases such as framing, anchoring, and status quo bias.
In their 2008 book Nudge, Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler and Holberg prize winner Cass Sunstein further developed the theory of decision making and made the case for what they call libertarian paternalism.3 They argue that most people are not experts in the many domains that affect their day-to-day life, and, when confronted with a choice, cannot spontaneously make the best decisions. For example, when offered a large number of health insurance policies, how does a novice in the market decide which one best fits his/her needs?*
It is possible to help people optimize their decision making by presenting options in a manner that makes the best options more likely to be chosen, in other words to “nudge” System 1’s spontaneity into making the best choice. Given the primacy of System 1 heuristics in decision making, the value of being able to influence it in the area of health and disease management is clear.
Nudging techniques are not meant to eliminate choice. If a person wants to reflect on a decision rationally and employ the System 2 thinking, he/she can always override their System 1 processes. As Thaler and Sunstein explain, choice can be presented in such a way that patients still have absolute freedom to decide among the options, but the most beneficial choices become more likely for those who choose to rely on System 1.
Consider decisions surrounding human organ donation. Having human organs readily available at hospitals can save countless lives, yet, organ donation remains a difficult issue to address in many societies, making organ availability scarce. In Austria, the government solved this problem by applying the following nudge technique: The default option for Austrians is to donate organs automatically should the criteria for donation be satisfied. Austrians are always able to opt out of this program, but as a result of this nudge, 99% of Austrians consent to organ donation. By comparison, neighboring Germany has not employed this default consent to donation, and the rate of organ donation is only 12%.4 In other words, Austria has an opt-out program while Germany has an opt-in. Recognizing the utility of System 1 default bias has helped Austrians substantially increase the availability of organs and save lives. Opt-in/opt-out nudging techniques are increasingly used by authorities to shape public policy.
Nudge approaches are used to enroll workers in pension schemes and healthcare plans, and even to decrease mortality rate on dangerous highways. Several countries, including the UK, USA, and Germany, have even created nudge units within their governments.
A 2019 study of cardiovascular disease patients on statins used artificial intelligence to create nudges consisting of personalized messages for each patient using the patient's psychographic profile (e.g., their perspectives, impressions, and opinions about healthcare). The nudges were primarily delivered via telephone calls, texts, and emails. Results showed that treatment adherence rates increased for patients receiving personalized nudges.5
Another study of patients with chronic diseases was conducted by a group of UK and USA researchers in collaboration with the NHS.6 The aim of this study was to access the patient’s availability bias that they could more easily comprehend the benefits of medication adherence. The results of that study demonstrated that nudging patients with a reminder of the personal and societal costs of non-adherence is a very efficient means of improving adherence.
According to Thaler and Sunstein, there are several situations in which nudges are particularly useful.7
Nudging techniques represent a major opportunity for addressing non-adherence. Whatever the environment or culture, people have the same heuristics and two-systems decision-making process, so nudging techniques can be broadly adapted and applied. Healthcare professionals who employ the behavioral measurement tools discussed in the previous article, << Activating patients to improve adherence >>, and who use the previously discussed frameworks such as the Behavior Change Wheel to understand each patient’s behavioral drivers, can couple their insight with nudge techniques to positively and efficiently influence patients into making good decisions. The emergence of digital technologies and artificial intelligence make it increasingly possible to personalize nudge techniques to each person to improve outcomes for patients, their families, and society in general. It is, however, important to note that the information on nudge techniques presented here cannot replace an actual and informed therapeutic approach. Future articles in this series will discuss how digital Patient Support Programs personalize nudge approaches and provide examples of how such techniques can improve adherence.
1. Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein (2008). Nudge, Part I, “Humans and econs,” Chapter 1, “Biases and blunders,” “How we think: Two systems.” (Please note that in Nudge, the authors refer to System 1 as the “automatic system” and to System 2 as the “reflective system.”)
2. Philip Iordanov (2018). “Thinking fast? Slow down,” Neurofied. 26 December, 2018. https://neurofied.com/thinking-fast-slow-down/
3. Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein (2008). Nudge, Part I, “Humans and econs,” Chapter 1, “Biases and blunders,” “How we think: Two systems.”
4. Anand Damani (2015). “Why 99% of Austrians donate their organs,” Behavioural Design, 11 August, 2015. http://www.behaviouraldesign.com/2015/08/11/why-99-of-austrians-donate-their-organs/#sthash.1ESiwL2p.dpbsc
5. “’Nudging’ heart patients to take their statins leads to better adherence and better outcomes,” Science Daily, 14 November, 2019. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191114075549.htm
6. Jon M. Jachimowicz (2019). “Making medications stick: Improving medication adherence by highlighting the personal health costs of non-compliance,” Behavioural Public Policy, pp. 1–21. https://doi:10.1017/bpp.2019.1
7. Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein (2008). Nudge, Part I, “When do we need nudge?” and “Fraught choices.”
8. Daniel Kahneman (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow, “Machine for jumping to conclusions, Section: What you see is all there is.”
9. Noemia Urruth Leão Tavares et al. (2016). “Factors associated with low adherence to medicine treatment for chronic diseases in Brazil,” Rev Saude Publica, (50) Supp. 2. https://doi: 10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006150