Feedback and Financial Incentives for Reducing Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Handheld phone use while driving is a major factor in vehicle crashes. Scalable interventions are needed to encourage drivers not to use their phones. Objective: To test whether interventions involving social comparison feedback and/or financial incentives can reduce drivers' handheld phone use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a randomized clinical trial, interventions were administered nationwide in the US via a mobile application in the context of a usage-based insurance program (Snapshot Mobile application). Customers were eligible to be invited to participate in the study if enrolled in the usage-based insurance program for 30 to 70 days. The study was conducted from May 13 to June 30, 2019. Analysis was completed December 22, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 trial arms for a 7-week intervention period: (1) control; (2) feedback, with weekly push notification about their handheld phone use compared with that of similar others; (3) standard incentive, with a maximum $50 award at the end of the intervention based on how their handheld phone use compared with similar others; (4) standard incentive plus feedback, combining interventions of arms 2 and 3; (5) reframed incentive plus feedback, with a maximum $7.15 award each week, framed as participant's to lose; and (6) doubled reframed incentive plus feedback, a maximum $14.29 weekly loss-framed award. Main Outcome and Measure: Proportion of drive time engaged in handheld phone use in seconds per hour (s/h) of driving. Analyses were conducted with the intention-to-treat approach. Results: Of 17 663 customers invited by email to participate, 2109 opted in and were randomized. A total of 2020 drivers finished the intervention period (68.0% female; median age, 30 [IQR, 25-39] years). Median baseline handheld phone use was 216 (IQR, 72-480) s/h. Relative to control, feedback and standard incentive participants did not reduce their handheld phone use. Standard incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -38 (95% CI, -69 to -8) s/h (P = .045); reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -56 (95% CI, -87 to -26) s/h (P < .001); and doubled reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -42 s/h (95% CI, -72 to -13 s/h; P = .007). The 5 active treatment arms did not differ significantly from each other. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, providing social comparison feedback plus incentives reduced handheld phone use while individuals were driving. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833219.

Patient and clinician perspectives of a remote monitoring program for COVID-19 and lessons for future programs.

COVID Watch is a remote patient monitoring program implemented during the pandemic to support home dwelling patients with COVID-19. The program conferred a large survival advantage. We conducted semi-structured interviews of 85 patients and clinicians using COVID Watch to understand how to design such programs even better. Patients and clinicians found COVID Watch to be comforting and beneficial, but both groups desired more clarity about the purpose and timing of enrollment and alternatives to text-messages to adapt to patients' preferences as these may have limited engagement and enrollment among marginalized patient populations. Because inclusiveness and equity are important elements of programmatic success, future programs will need flexible and multi-channel human-to-human communication pathways for complex clinical interactions or for patients who do not desire tech-first approaches.

Sustained Implementation of a Multicomponent Strategy to Increase Emergency Department-Initiated Interventions for Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is strong evidence supporting emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, but less is known about how to implement this practice. Our aim was to describe implementation, maintenance, and provider adoption of a multicomponent strategy for opioid use disorder treatment in 3 urban, academic EDs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for adult patients with opioid use disorder-related visits before (March 2017 to November 2018) and after (December 2018 to July 2020) implementation. We describe patient characteristics, clinical treatment, and process measures over time and conducted an interrupted time series analysis using a patient-level multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association of the interventions with buprenorphine use and other outcomes. Finally, we report provider-level variation in prescribing after implementation. RESULTS: There were 2,665 opioid use disorder-related visits during the study period: 28% for overdose, 8% for withdrawal, and 64% for other conditions. Thirteen percent of patients received medications for opioid use disorder during or after their ED visit overall. Following intervention implementation, there were sustained increases in treatment and process measures, with a net increase in total buprenorphine of 20% in the postperiod (95% confidence interval 16% to 23%). In the adjusted patient-level model, there was an immediate increase in the probability of buprenorphine treatment of 24.5% (95% confidence interval 12.1% to 37.0%) with intervention implementation. Seventy percent of providers wrote at least 1 buprenorphine prescription, but provider-level buprenorphine prescribing ranged from 0% to 61% of opioid use disorder-related encounters. CONCLUSION: A combination of strategies to increase ED-initiated opioid use disorder treatment was associated with sustained increases in treatment and process measures. However, adoption varied widely among providers, suggesting that additional strategies are needed for broader uptake.