A virtual pilot optimization trial for African American/Black and Latino persons with non-suppressed HIV viral load grounded in motivational interviewing and behavioral economics.

Introduction: Virtual and low-touch behavioral interventions are needed for African American/Black and Latino persons living with HIV (PLWH) with barriers to HIV viral suppression, particularly during COVID-19. Guided by the multiphase optimization strategy, we explored three components for PLWH without viral suppression, grounded in motivational interviewing and behavioral economics: (1) motivational interviewing counseling, (2) 21-weeks of automated text messages and quiz questions about HIV management, and (3) financial rewards for viral suppression (lottery prize vs. fixed compensation). Methods: This pilot optimization trial used sequential explanatory mixed methods to explore the components' feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary evidence of effects using an efficient factorial design. The primary outcome was viral suppression. Participants engaged in baseline and two structured follow-up assessments over an 8-month period, and provided laboratory reports to document HIV viral load. A subset engaged in qualitative interviews. We carried out descriptive quantitative analyses. Then, qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Data integration used the joint display method. Results: Participants (N = 80) were 49 years old, on average (SD = 9), and 75% were assigned male sex at birth. Most (79%) were African American/Black, and the remainder were Latino. Participants were diagnosed with HIV 20 years previously on average (SD = 9). Overall, components were feasible (>80% attended) and acceptability was satisfactory. A total of 39% (26/66) who provided laboratory reports at follow-up evidenced viral suppression. Findings suggested no components were entirely unsuccessful. The lottery prize compared to fixed compensation was the most promising component level. In qualitative analyses, all components were seen as beneficial to individual wellbeing. The lottery prize appeared more interesting and engaging than fixed compensation. However, structural barriers including financial hardship interfered with abilities to reach viral suppression. The integrated analyses yielded areas of convergence and discrepancy and qualitative findings added depth and context to the quantitative results. Conclusions: The virtual and/or low-touch behavioral intervention components tested are acceptable and feasible and show enough potential to warrant refinement and testing in future research, particularly the lottery prize. Results must be interpreted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration: NCT04518241 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04518241).

Evaluation of behavioral economic strategies to raise influenza vaccination rates across a health system: Results from a randomized clinical trial.

Influenza vaccination rates are low. Working with a large US health system, we evaluated three health system-wide interventions using the electronic health record's patient portal to improve influenza vaccination rates. We performed a two-arm RCT with a nested factorial design within the treatment arm, randomizing patients to usual-care control (no portal interventions) or to one or more portal interventions. We included all patients within this health system during the 2020-2021 influenza vaccination season, which overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the patient portal, we simultaneously tested: pre-commitment messages (sent September 2020, asking patients to commit to a vaccination); monthly portal reminders (October - December 2020), direct appointment scheduling (patients could self-schedule influenza vaccination at multiple sites); and pre-appointment reminder messages (sent before scheduled primary care appointments, reminding patients about influenza vaccination). The main outcome measure was receipt of influenza vaccine (10/01/2020-03/31/2021). We randomized 213,773 patients (196,070 adults ≥18 years, 17,703 children). Influenza vaccination rates overall were low (39.0%). Vaccination rates for study arms did not differ: Control (38.9%), pre-commitment vs no pre-commitment (39.2%/38.9%), direct appointment scheduling yes/no (39.1%/39.1%), pre-appointment reminders yes/no (39.1%/39.1%); p > 0.017 for all comparisons (p value cut-off adjusted for multiple comparisons). After adjusting for age, gender, insurance, race, ethnicity, and prior influenza vaccination, none of the interventions increased vaccination rates. We conclude that patient portal interventions to remind patients to receive influenza vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic did not raise influenza immunization rates. More intensive or tailored interventions are needed beyond portal innovations to increase influenza vaccination.

Extra-experimental scarcity impacts hypothetical operant demand: A natural SARS-CoV-2 eperiment.

Behavioral economic demand models quantify the extent to which an organism defends its consumption of a commodity. Commodity purchase tasks permit humans a quick yet psychometrically sound approach to assessing commodity demand for various retail products. Operant behavioral economic literature suggests economy type (open vs closed) can significantly alter demand, yet this effect is largely undocumented in the commodity purchase task literature. In this study, we leveraged the market pressures for retail goods (hand lotion and sanitizer; paper towels and toilet paper; soda and water) resulting from SARS-CoV-2 into a natural experiment comparing within-subject demand across two time-points during the pandemic using a crowdsourced approach. Results suggest that hypothetical commodity purchase tasks are sensitive to extra-experimental market pressures (e.g., scarcity due to the closing of economies), adding additional confidence to the self-report nature of purchase task responding and providing further construct validity to these approaches.

Behavioral economic methods predict future COVID-19 vaccination.

Increasing vaccine utilization is critical for numerous diseases, including COVID-19, necessitating novel methods to forecast uptake. Behavioral economic methods have been developed as rapid, scalable means of identifying mechanisms of health behavior engagement. However, most research using these procedures is cross-sectional and evaluates prediction of behaviors with already well-established repertories. Evaluation of the validity of hypothetical tasks that measure behaviors not yet experienced is important for the use of these procedures in behavioral health. We use vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic to test whether responses regarding a novel, hypothetical behavior (COVID-19 vaccination) are predictive of later real-world response. Participants (N = 333) completed a behavioral economic hypothetical purchase task to evaluate willingness to receive a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine based on efficacy. This was completed in August 2020, before clinical trial data on COVID-19 vaccines. Participants completed follow-up assessments approximately 1 year later when the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available in June 2021 and November 2021 with vaccination status measured. Prediction of vaccination was made based on data collected in August 2020. Vaccine demand was a significant predictor of vaccination after controlling for other significant predictors including political orientation, delay discounting, history of flu vaccination, and a single-item intent to vaccinate. These findings show predictive validity of a behavioral economic procedure explicitly designed to measure a behavior for which a participant has limited-to-no direct prior experience or exposure. Positive correspondence supports the validity of these hypothetical arrangements for predicting vaccination utilization and advances behavioral economic methods.

A goal of behavioral science is to develop methods that can predict future behavior to inform preventive health efforts and identify ways people engage in positive health behaviors. Behavioral economic methods apply easy to use and rapid assessment tools to evaluate these mechanisms of health behavior engagement. Here, we show how similar methods can be applied to novel behaviors yet experienced like intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. We find that responses on a behavioral economic task designed to measure vaccination likelihood closely corresponded to the likelihood of being vaccinated 1 year later. This prediction was above and beyond common predictors of vaccination including demographics like political orientation and age. These findings provide support for these novel methods in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, and behavioral health, broadly.

Behavioral Economics in the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Theory and Simulations.

We provide a game-theoretical epidemiological model for the COVID-19 pandemic that takes into account that: (1) asymptomatic individuals can be contagious, (2) contagion is behavior-dependent, (3) behavior is determined by a game that depends on beliefs and social interactions, (4) there can be systematic biases in the perceptions and beliefs about the pandemic. We incorporate lockdown decisions by the government into the model. The citizens' and government's beliefs can exhibit several biases that we discuss from the point of view of behavioral economics. We provide simulations to understand the effect of lockdown decisions and the possibility of "nudging" citizens in the right direction by improving the accuracy of their beliefs.

Application of behavioral economics for understanding health behaviors among adolescents and young adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Behavioral economics (BE) concepts have become well studied tools in addressing patient issues, such as weight loss, smoking cessation, and medication adherence. Although predominantly studied in adult populations, emerging literature has shown BE's utility for adolescent/young adult (AYA) populations, offering a practical framework to safeguard AYA health and influence healthy decision making. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified substantive areas in which BE concepts have been applied in AYA populations (e.g., substance use) and outline how these concepts have been used as a tool to identify individuals at risk for poor outcomes and to leverage behavioral insights to improve health behaviors. SUMMARY: BE research holds significant promise as a tool for clinicians and researchers to encourage healthy decision making in AYA populations. Yet, there are opportunities for BE research to expand further into current trends impacting adolescent health, such as electronic nicotine delivery systems, social media apps, and coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations. Furthermore, the full degree of BE utility remains to be explored, as few studies demonstrate the translation of associative findings into direct interventions. Additional work is needed to formalize BE techniques into best practices that clinicians can implement in their daily practice.

[Nudges and the pandemic: An analysis from economics and behavioural law. SESPAS Report 2022]. / Nudges y la pandemia: un análisis desde la economía y el derecho conductual. Informe SESPAS 2022.

Behavioural economics (a combination of economics and psychology) provides keys to understand decisions made by politicians and citizens along the COVID-19 pandemic through the so-called cognitive biases. These biases can be offset by implementing behavioural interventions named "nudges" in order to promote responsible behaviours in the "new normality". This paper analyses, from a behavioural economics perspective, past, present and future of behavioural aspects surrounding the pandemic. Besides, this paper proposes different ways to formalize nudges according to law, which needs the fulfilment of three minimum requirements, namely: transparency, non-arbitrariness and efficiency. Furthermore, it is also suggested that protocols and contingency plans are set up to face future pandemics, in which both soft (nudge-type) interventions and hard legal regulations play different roles but complementary ones. Nudges can be implemented in a fast and less coercive way, so they are particularly suitable for changing mild misbehaviour, reserving legal sanctions for the more serious ones.

Applied behavioral economics and public health policies: Historical precedence and translational promise.

Behavioral economics is an approach to understanding behavior though integrating behavioral psychology and microeconomic principles. Advances in behavioral economics have resulted in quick-to-administer tasks to assess discounting (i.e., decrements in the subjective value of a commodity due to delayed or probabilistic receipt) and demand (i.e., effort exerted to defend baseline consumption of a commodity amidst increasing constraints)-these tasks are built upon decades of foundational work from the experimental analysis of behavior and exhibit adequate psychometric properties. We propose that the behavioral economic approach is particularly well suited, then, for experimentally evaluating potential public policy decisions, particularly during urgent times or crises. Using examples from our collaborations (e.g., cannabis legalization, happy hour alcohol pricing, severe weather alerts, COVID-19 vaccine marketing), we demonstrate how behavioral economic approaches have rendered novel insights to guide policy development and garnered widespread attention outside of academia. We conclude with implications on multidisciplinary work and other areas in need of behavioral economic investigations.

Understanding Decision-Making in the Adoption of Digital Health Technology: The Role of Behavioral Economics' Prospect Theory.

The decision to accept or reject new digital health technologies remains an ongoing challenge among health care patients, providers, technology companies, and policymakers. Over the past few decades, interest in understanding the choice to adopt technology has led to the development of numerous theories and models. In 1979, however, psychologists Kahneman and Tversky published their seminal research article that has pioneered the field of behavioral economics. They named their model the prospect theory and used it to explain decision-making behaviors under conditions of risk and uncertainty as well as to provide an understanding of why individuals may make irrational or inconsistent choices. Although the prospect theory has been used to explain decision-making in economics, law, political science, and clinically, at the individual level, its application to understanding choice in the adoption of digital health technology has not been explored. Herein, we discuss how the main components of the prospect theory's editing phase (framing effect) and evaluation phase (value function and weighting function) can provide valuable insight on why health care patients, providers, technology companies, and policymakers may decide to accept or reject digital health technologies.

Behavioral Economics and Ambulatory Antibiotic Stewardship: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Behavioral economics recognizes that contextual, psychological, social, and emotional factors powerfully influence decision-making. Behavioral economics has the potential to provide a better understanding of, and, through subtle environmental changes, or "nudges," improve persistent quality-of-care challenges, like ambulatory antibiotic overprescribing. Despite decades of admonitions and educational initiatives, in the United States, up to 50% of ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions remain inappropriate or not associated with a diagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a Medline search and performed a narrative review that examined the use of behavioral economics to understand the rationale for, and improvement of, ambulatory antibiotic prescribing. FINDINGS: Clinicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately because of perceived patient demand, to maintain patient satisfaction, diagnostic uncertainty, or time pressure, among other reasons. Behavioral economics-informed approaches offer additional improvements in antibiotic prescribing beyond clinician education and communication training. Precommitment, in which clinicians publicize their intent to prescribe antibiotics "only when they are absolutely necessary," leverages clinicians' self-conception and a desire to act in a manner consistent with public statements. Precommitment was associated with a 20% absolute reduction in the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. Justification alerts, in which clinicians must provide a brief written rationale for prescribing antibiotics, leverages social accountability, redefines the status quo as an active choice, and helps clinicians to shift from fast to slow, careful thinking. With justification alerts, the absolute rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing decreased from 23% to 5%. Peer comparison, in which clinicians receive feedback comparing their performance to their top-performing peers, provides evidence of improved performance and leverages peoples' desire to conform to social norms. Peer comparison decreased absolute inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rates from 20% to 4%, a decrease that persisted for 12 months after the end of the intervention. Also, a one-time peer-comparison letter from a high-profile messenger to primary care practices with high rates of prescribing antibiotics, there was a 6-month, 3% decrease inantibiotic prescribing. Future directions in applying behavioral economics to the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing include paying careful attention to design details; improving intervention effectiveness and durability; making harms salient; participants' involvement in the development of interventions (the "Ikea effect"); factoring in patient satisfaction; and patient-facing nudges about antibiotic use and care-seeking. In addition, the COVID pandemic could aid in ambulatory antibiotic prescribing improvements due to changing cognitive frames around respiratory symptom evaluation and antibiotic prescribing. IMPLICATIONS: To improve ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, several behavioral economics-informed approaches-especially precommitment, justification alerts, and peer comparison-have reduced the rates of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics to low levels.

The Role of Behavioral Economics in Improving Cardiovascular Health Behaviors and Outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Behavioral economics represents a promising set of principles to inform the design of health-promoting interventions. Techniques from the field have the potential to increase quality of cardiovascular care given suboptimal rates of guideline-directed care delivery and patient adherence to optimal health behaviors across the spectrum of cardiovascular care delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: Cardiovascular health-promoting interventions have demonstrated success in using a wide array of principles from behavioral economics, including loss framing, social norms, and gamification. Such approaches are becoming increasingly sophisticated and focused on clinical cardiovascular outcomes in addition to health behaviors as a primary endpoint. Many approaches can be used to improve patient decisions remotely, which is particularly useful given the shift to virtual care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous applications for behavioral economics exist in the cardiovascular care delivery space, though more work is needed before we will have a full understanding of ways to best leverage such applications in each clinical context.

Disability, Human Resources and Behavioral Economics: The Labour Inclusion Case of Ilunion Hotels of the Costa del Sol (Spain).

The situation of labour inclusion of people with disabilities in Spain is still too negative, in spite of the different efforts carried out by public and private sector. Previous research points to social discrimination as one of the main causes of the situation. Ilunion Hotels is one of the most important hotel companies in Spain focused on labour inclusion of people with disabilities. The objective of this paper is to explore the social inclusion case of Ilunion Hotels of the Costa del Sol, the actions that they have developed to improve the labour integration of this collective, based on a behavioral economics theoretical model (with a high relevance of the influence of social stigma, stress theories and coping to stress responses). We look into the specific situation of two of the three hotels developed as Special Employment Centres (sheltered employment contexts defined by Spanish legislation) and the possible impact of their Support Units for Professional Activity. Case study methodology is considered the most appropriate, according to the research objective, supported by semi-structured interviews with the hotel managers. The results show that, although Special Employment Centres are effective in improving labour integration in the short term and could contribute to change the long-term social perspectives about workers with disabilities, they could be also reinforcing the social stigma existing in the ordinary market.

Care Ethics versus the CARES Act.

One of the biggest policy interventions during the last year of the COVID-19 pandemic was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act, instituting a novel form of economic relief similar to a universal basic income. The economic impact payments, colloquially known as "stimulus checks," were distributed based on the socioeconomic status of American citizens and legal residents and provided much-needed financial aid. However, the distribution of these payments paid little attention to other important factors that might determine the economic security of said individuals, such as race and gender. This article calls for policy-makers to pay particular attention to how structural inequity and discrimination based on identity could affect the efficacy of proposed policies and demonstrate an ethic of care informed by an understanding of intersectionality.

How to make universal, voluntary testing for COVID-19 work? A behavioural economics perspective.

Testing is widely seen as one core element of a successful strategy to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic and many countries have increased their efforts to provide testing at large scale. As most democratic governments refrain from enacting mandatory testing, a key emerging challenge is to increase voluntary participation. Using behavioural economics insights complemented with data from a novel survey in the US and a survey experiment in Luxembourg, we examine behavioural factors associated with the individual willingness to get tested (WTT). In our analysis, individual characteristics that correlate positively with WTT include age, altruism, conformism, the tendency to abide by government-imposed rules, concern about contracting COVID-19, and patience. Risk aversion, unemployment, and conservative political orientation correlate negatively with WTT. Building on and expanding these insights may prove fruitful for policy to effectively raise people's propensity to get tested.

L'économie comportementale au service de la santé.

The COVID-19 pandemic is bringing about far-reaching structural changes on both the economy and public health, and conventional methodologies have to be fine-tuned to assist public health decision making. In this context, behavioural economics, which is situated at the crossroads between economics and social psychology, is an undeniably innovative field. In contrast with conventional models, the economic models of behavioural economics incorporate psychological and social determinants to produce more accurate predictions of individual behaviour. In the last 20 years, the scientific community has been using this approach's quantitative tool, experimental economics, in many areas of health, including prevention, promotion, human resources and social signage. Studies have come up with effective solutions that have improved best public health practices and provided sources of inspiration that should not be overlooked in the fight against COVID-19. They have allowed natural human behaviour to take a central role again, helped us to understand how the social and economic environment influences individuals, and enabled us to anticipate human reactions and so make faster adjustments to public policies.

RéSUMé: L'épidémie de COVID-19 nous impose des changements structurels profonds tant sur les plans économiques que sanitaires et les méthodologies classiques doivent être perfectionnées pour mieux adapter les décisions de santé publique. Dans ce cadre, l'économie comportementale, au croisement des sciences économiques et de la psychologie sociale, est un domaine incontestablement innovant en la matière. En effet, contrairement aux modèles classiques, cette discipline intègre les déterminants psychosociaux dans les modèles économiques pour mieux prédire les comportements des individus. Depuis une vingtaine d'années, la communauté scientifique utilise l'outil quantitatif de cette approche, l'économie expérimentale, dans de nombreux secteurs de la santé tels que la prévention, la promotion, les ressources humaines et la signalisation sociale. Les études menées ont apporté des solutions efficaces pour améliorer les bonnes pratiques sanitaires et sont des inspirations à ne pas négliger pour la lutte contre la COVID-19. Elles ont permis notamment de redonner une place centrale au comportement naturel de l'homme, de comprendre comment l'environnement socio-économique influence les individus et d'anticiper les réactions humaines pour adapter rapidement les politiques publiques.

A behavioral economics perspective on the COVID-19 vaccine amid public mistrust.

The COVID-19 vaccine development, testing, and approval processes have moved forward with unprecedented speed in 2020. Although several vaccine candidates have shown promising results in clinical trials, resulting in expedited approval for public use from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, recent polls suggest that Americans strongly distrust the vaccine and its approval process. This mistrust stems from both the unusual speed of vaccine development and reports about side effects. This article applies insights from behavioral economics to consider how the general public may make decisions around whether or not to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine in a context of frequent side effects and preexisting mistrust. Three common cognitive biases shown to influence human decision-making under a behavioral economics framework are considered: confirmation bias, negativity bias, and optimism bias. Applying a behavioral economics framework to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making can elucidate potential barriers to vaccine uptake and points of intervention for clinicians and public health professionals.