Behavioral economics: "Nudging" underserved populations to be screened for cancer

Preventing Chronic Disease

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Purnell, Jason Q ^a   Thompson, Tess ^b   Kreuter, Matthew W ^b   McBride, Timothy D ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS; DECISION MAKING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; MOTIVATION; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

DECISION MAKING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ECONOMICS, BEHAVIORAL; GLOBAL HEALTH; HUMANS; MORBIDITY; MOTIVATION; NEOPLASMS; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 84922341990     PISSN: 15451151     EISSN: 21665435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5888/pcd12.140346     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63(1):11-30.
2. Smith RA, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63(2):88-105.
3. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(10):716-26.
4. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149(9):627-37.
5. Moyer VA,US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156(12):880-91. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med 2013; 158(11):852.
6. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2013. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 2013.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The guide to community preventive services. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013.
8. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012;43(1):97-118.
9. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 2003;58(9):697-720.
10. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185(4157):1124-31.
11. Weinstein ND, Marcus SE, Moser RP. Smokers' unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tob Control 2005;14(1):55-9.
12. Katapodi MC, Lee KA, Facione NC, Dodd MJ. Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med 2004;38(4):388-402.
13. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211(4481):453-8.
14. Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health 1994;84(1):43-9.
15. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007;10(5):415-30.
16. Van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JDF, et al. What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer 2010;46(1):150-9.
17. Huber J, Payne J, Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypotheses. J Consum Res 1982;9:90-8.
18. O'Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gainframed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Commun 2009; 59(7):296-316.
19. Miller SM, Buzaglo JS, Simms SL, Green V, Bales C, Mangan CE, et al. Monitoring styles in women at risk for cervical cancer: implications for the framing of health-relevant messages. Ann Behav Med 1999;21(1):27-34.
20. Rabin M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 1993;83(5):1281-302.
21. Born W, Engelman K, Greiner KA, Bhattacharya SB, Hall S, Hou Q, et al. Colorectal cancer screening, perceived discrimination, and low-income and trust in doctors: a survey of minority patients. BMC Public Health 2009;9(1):363.
22. Shariff-Marco S, Klassen AC, Bowie JV. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported racism and its association with cancer-related health behaviors. Am J Public Health 2010; 100(2):364-74.
23. Dailey AB, Kasl SV, Holford TR, Jones BA. Perceived racial discrimination and nonadherence to screening mammography guidelines: results from the race differences in the screening mammography process study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165(11):1287-95.
24. Klabunde CN, Lanier D, Breslau ES, Zapka JG, Fletcher RH, Ransohoff DF, et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice: innovative strategies and future directions. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(8):1195-205.
25. Greiner KA, Born W, Nollen N, Ahluwalia JS. Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20(11):977-83.
26. Recommendations for primary care practice. Rockville (MD): US Preventive Services Task Force; 2014. http:// www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/ recommendations. Accessed November 5, 2014.
27. DeSantis C, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63(3):151-66.
28. Gigerenzer G. Why heuristics work. Perspect Psychol Sci 2008;3(1):20-9.
29. Sieverding M, Decker S, Zimmermann F. Information about low participation in cancer screening demotivates other people. Psychol Sci 2010;21(7):941-3.
30. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D. The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, editors. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive thought. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press; 2002. p. 397-420.
31. Flynn PM, Betancourt H, Ormseth SR. Culture, emotion, and cancer screening: an integrative framework for investigating health behavior. Ann Behav Med 2011;42(1):79-90.
32. Camerer C, Loewenstein G. Behavioral economics: past, present, future. In: Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Rabin M, editors. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2004. p. 3-51.
33. Sunstein C. Selective fatalism. J Legal Stud 1998; 27(S2):799-823.
34. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 2008.
35. Madrian B, Shea D. The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ 2001; 116(4):1149-87.
36. Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med 2007; 357(13):1340-4.
37. Reiter PL, McRee AL, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Default policies and parents' consent for school-located HPV vaccination. J Behav Med 2012;35(6):651-7.
38. Sabatino SA, Habarta N, Baron RC, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Kerner J, et al. Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am J Prev Med 2008;35(1,Suppl):S67-74.
39. Stone EG, Morton SC, Hulscher ME, Maglione MA, Roth EA, Grimshaw JM, et al. Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2002;136(9):641-51.
40. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1980;1(1):39-60.