Herding-like behaviour in medical decision making: An experimental study investigating general practitioners' prescription behaviour.

Previous observational studies have indicated that social influences, such as arising from herding-like behaviour, can contribute to medical errors. In this study, we experimentally examined whether general practitioners (GPs) would follow incorrect prescription recommendations from fellow GP or specialists. To investigate this, we conducted an online survey with 475 GPs practicing in England that included two case vignettes. Case vignette 1 focused on sleeping tablets, and case vignette 2 was centred around antibiotics. The vignettes were presented in random order, and within each vignette, study participants were assigned to one of three experimental conditions: control condition (lacking peer recommendation), fellow GP condition (including a recommendation from a fellow GP not aligned with best practice clinical guidelines), or specialist condition (including a recommendation from a specialist not aligned with best practice clinical guidelines). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of GPs who prescribed medication that deviated from best practice clinical guidelines. We found that, in both case vignettes, the percentage of respondents prescribing such medication was highest in those assigned to the specialist condition, followed by those assigned to the control condition. It was lowest in those assigned to the fellow GP condition (case vignette 1: 73.8% vs. 55.6% vs. 36.6% and case vignette 2: 24.0% vs. 12.4% vs. 10.1%). In the case of vignette 1, the difference between the fellow GP condition and the control condition is statistically significant, suggesting that GPs are less likely to prescribe sleeping tablets when recommended by a fellow GP. This implies that GPs are more inclined to prescribe non-guideline-recommended medication when advised by specialists. This study is the first to experimentally demonstrate that physician herding behaviour can result in prescription errors. Future research could extend this inquiry to diverse contexts, including diagnosis.

Testing a decoy donation incentive to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment.

This study introduces a new randomized field experiment exploring the impact of offering a decoy charity donation incentive together with a monetary reward to increase response rates in an online survey about coronavirus fears. The study used a two-stage approach, starting with a preliminary survey to investigate participant attitudes toward different types of donations. Subsequently, an experiment was conducted wherein a less desirable £2 donation (the decoy) was introduced as an alternative to a £2 Amazon voucher (the target) within the choice set. The study sample consisted of 431 university students. They were split into three groups: a control group with a standard £2 Amazon voucher incentive (216 participants), a decoy group with the target shown first (108 participants), and a decoy group with the decoy shown first (107 participants). We found significantly higher survey completion rates in the decoy than in the control condition (82.3% vs. 74.5%). Notably, an order effect was observed-presenting the target before the decoy led to a higher completion rate (89.8%) compared to presenting the decoy first (74.8%). Importantly, the inclusion of the decoy incentive did not introduce any response bias. This study offers a proof of principle that incorporating a decoy charity donation incentive into the choice set can have a positive impact on survey participation without adversely affecting response behaviour. It demonstrates the potential of such incentives to encourage participants to complete online surveys, even when a small monetary reward is offered.

General Practitioners' Awareness and Perception of Current Pneumococcal Vaccination for Adult Patients with Known Risk Factors in Switzerland: Evidence from a Survey.

In Switzerland, the National Immunization Advisory Group (NITAG) has formulated recommendations for pneumococcal vaccination among adult risk patients. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perception, knowledge, and implementation of these recommendations. Therefore, we investigated GPs' awareness and drivers of and barriers to pneumococcal vaccination using a cross-sectional web-based survey of GPs. Of the 300 study participants, 81.3% were aware of the recommendations for vaccinating at-risk adult patients, but only 42.7% were aware of all risk groups. The recommendations were perceived by 79.7% as slightly to very complex. Most GPs (66.7%) had good arguments to convince patients to get vaccinated, but only 41.7% reported recognizing patients at risk for pneumococcal disease, and only 46.7% checked their patients' vaccination status and proposed vaccination if needed. The main reasons for not vaccinating were patients' refusal (80.1%), lack of reimbursement by the health insurance (34.5%), patients' fear of side effects (25.1%), and lack of regulatory approval despite the NITAG recommendations (23.7%). Most (77.3%) agreed that the treating chronic disease specialist should recommend the vaccination and 94.7% believed that adult-risk patients would not be aware of their need for pneumococcal vaccinations. Optimal implementation of the recommendations will require addressing knowledge gaps and reported barriers.

Colorectal cancer surveillance by colonoscopy in a prospective, population-based long-term Swiss screening study - outcomes, adherence, and costs.

BACKGROUND: The success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends mainly on screening quality, patient adherence to surveillance, and costs. Consequently, it is essential to assess the performance over time. METHODS: In 2000, a closed cohort study on CRC screening in individuals aged 50 to 80 was initiated in Uri, Switzerland. Participants who chose to undergo colonoscopy were followed over 18 years. We investigated the adherence to recommended surveillance and collected baseline characteristics and colonoscopy data. Risk factors at screening for the development of advanced adenomas were analyzed. Costs for screening and follow-up were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 1278 subjects with a screening colonoscopy were included, of which 272 (21.3%; 69.5% men) had adenomas, and 83 (6.5%) had advanced adenomas. Only 59.8% participated in a follow-up colonoscopy, half of them within the recommended time interval. Individuals with advanced adenomas at screening had nearly five times the risk of developing advanced adenomas compared to individuals without adenomas (24.3% vs. 5.0%, OR 4.79 CI 2.30-9.95). Individuals without adenomas developed advanced adenomas in 4.9%, including four cases of CRC; three of them without control colonoscopy. The villous component in adenomas smaller than 10 mm was not an independent risk factor. Costs for screening and follow-up added up to CHF 1'934'521 per 1'000 persons screened, almost half of them for follow-up examinations; 60% of these costs accounted for low-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that follow-up of screening colonoscopy should be reconsidered in Switzerland; in particular, long-term adherence is critical. Costs for follow-up could be substantially reduced by adopting less expensive long-term screening methods for low-risk individuals.

Patterns of care and economic consequences of using bone-targeted agents for castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients with bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events in Switzerland - the SAKK 95/16 prostate study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines state that bone-targeted agents such as denosumab or zoledronic acid at doses used for bone metastasis are not indicated for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) with bone metastases. Whereas denosumab has never been studied in this patient population, zoledronic acid has been shown to be ineffective in decreasing the risk for skeletal-related events. This study estimates the prevalence and economic consequences of real-world use of bone-targeted agents for mCSPC patients in Switzerland. METHODS: To estimate the frequency of bone-targeted agent administration and skeletal-related events, data from a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey involving oncologists across Switzerland (SAKK 95/16) was combined with data from the Swiss National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER). Economic parameters were calculated from the perspective of the healthcare system over the median time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression for the extrapolated patient group, using data from NICER. The cost calculation covered costs for bone-targeted agents, their administration and skeletal-related events. The time to PSA progression (33.2 months), as well as the probability and cost of skeletal-related events were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 86 physicians treating 417 patients, of whom 106 (25.4%) had prostate cancer, with 36 (34.0%) of these mCSPC. The majority of mCSPC patients (52.8%, n = 19) received bone-targeted agents monthly. Denosumab was the treatment of choice in 84.2% of patients (n = 16). Extrapolation using data from NICER indicated that 568 mCSPC patients may be treated with bone-targeted agents at doses used for bone metastasis  every year in Switzerland, leading to estimated total costs of more than CHF 8.3 million over 33.2 months. Because of its more frequent prescription and higher price, it appears that almost 93% of the total costs can be attributed to denosumab. For both denosumab and zoledronic acid, the most expensive components were the cost of administration and the drug cost, making up more than 90% of the total costs, with the rest being costs of skeletal-related events. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the administration of bone-targeted agents in doses used for bone-metastatic diseases to prevent skeletal-related events is frequent in the setting of mCSPC and results in significant costs for the healthcare system.

Offering disinclined people the choice between different screening appointments: a randomised online survey.

OBJECTIVES: An invitation to cancer screening with a single (fixed) appointment time has been shown to be a more effective way at increasing uptake compared with an invitation with an open (unscheduled) appointment. The present study tested whether offering more than one fixed appointment could further enhance this effect or be detrimental to people's intention. DESIGN: Experimental online hypothetical vignette survey. METHODS: 1,908 respondents who stated that they did not intend to participate in Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) were offered either one, two, four or six hypothetical fixed BSS appointments (all of which covered the same time of day to control for individual preferences). RESULTS: Participants who were given more than one appointment to choose from were less likely to intend to book an appointment despite multiple appointments being perceived as more convenient. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that when it comes to offering people appointments for cancer screening, less (choice) is more, at least if alternatives fail to serve an inherent preference.

Preferences for different diagnostic modalities to follow up abnormal colorectal cancer screening results: a hypothetical vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: In England, a significant proportion of people who take part in the national bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) and have a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) result, do not attend follow-up colonoscopy (CC). The aim of this study was to investigate differences in intended participation in a follow-up investigation by diagnostic modality offered including CC, CT colonography (CTC) or capsule endoscopy (CE). SETTING: We performed a randomised online experiment with individuals who had previously completed an FOBt as part of the English BCSP. METHODS: Participants (n=953) were randomly allocated to receive one of three online vignettes asking participants to imagine they had received an abnormal FOBt result, and that they had been invited for a follow-up test. The follow-up test offered was either: CC (n=346), CTC (n=302) or CE (n=305). Participants were then asked how likely they were to have their allocated test or if they refused, either of the other tests. Respondents were also asked to cite possible emotional and practical barriers to follow up testing. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate intentions. RESULTS: Intention to have the test was higher in the CTC group (96.7%) compared with the CC group (91.8%; OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.22 to 5.73). CTC was considered less 'off-putting' (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.94) and less uncomfortable compared with CC (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77). For those who did not intend to have the test they were offered, CE (39.7%) or no investigation (34.5%) was preferable to CC (8.6%) or CTC (17.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Alternative tests have the potential to increase attendance at diagnostic follow-up appointments.

Correction: Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213668.].

General practitioners' awareness of the recommendations for faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for suspected lower gastrointestinal cancers: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: In July 2017, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a diagnostic guidance (DG30) recommending the use of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for symptomatic patients who do not meet the urgent referral pathway for suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). We assessed general practitioners' (GP) awareness of DG30 in primary care 6 months after its publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey of GPs hosted by an English panel of Primary health care professionals. PARTICIPANTS: In December 2017, 1024 GPs registered on an online panel (M3) based in England took part in an online survey. OUTCOMES AND VARIABLES: We investigated a number of factors including previous experience of using FIT and guaiac faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), the number of urgent referrals for CRC that GPs have made in the last year and their sociodemographic and professional characteristics that could be associated with their self-reported awareness of the FIT diagnostic guidance. RESULTS: Of the 1024 GPs who completed the survey, 432 (42.2%) were aware of the current recommendation but only 102 (10%) had used it to guide their referrals. Awareness was lowest in North West England compared with London (30.5% vs 44.9%; adjusted OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92). Awareness of the FIT guidance was positively associated with test usage after the NICE update (adjusted OR: 13.00, 95% CI 6.87 to 24.61) and having specialist training (adjusted OR: 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.08). The number of urgent referrals, the previous use of FOBt, GPs' age and gender, work experience and practice size (both in terms of the number of GPs or patients at the practice) were not associated with awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of GPs in this survey recognised the current guidance on the use of FIT. Self-reported awareness was not systematically related to demographic of professional characteristics.

Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening.

Literature on consumer choice has demonstrated that the inclusion of an inferior alternative choice (decoy) can increase interest in a target product or action. In two online studies, we tested the impact of decoys on the probability of previous non-intenders to have a screening test which could significantly lower their chances of dying of colorectal cancer. We find that the presence of a decoy increased the probability to choose screening at the target hospital (over no screening) from 39% to 54% and 37% to 59% depending on how many hospital attributes were communicated and how strongly the decoy was dominated by the target. We also show that the presence of the decoy was associated with lower levels of reported decisional complexity while not undermining information seeking and knowledge acquisition. These findings offer a 'proof of principle' that decoys have the potential to increase screening uptake without negatively influencing informed choice.