Offering male endoscopists as decoy option to nudge disinclined women to have colorectal cancer screening
Tóm tắt
Previous studies have shown that a large proportion of women invited for bowel cancer screening prefer endoscopists of the same gender. We tested whether women who are initially disinclined to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening would be more willing to have the test with a female practitioner if they were also offered a decoy appointment with a male practitioner. We conducted two online experiments with women aged 35–54, living in England, who did not intend to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. In both experiments, women were randomised to two conditions: (1) control (appointment with a female endoscopist) and (2) decoy (two appointments to choose from, one with a male endoscopist and one with a female endoscopist). Experiment 1 (N = 302) verified the conditions for the decoy using a conventional intention scale, while experiment 2 (N = 300) tested how the presence of the decoy influences the likelihood of women choosing the appointment with the female practitioner in a discrete choice task. While experiment 1 showed that the presence of the decoy increased intentions to attend the appointment with the female practitioner (p = 0.02), experiment 2 confirmed that women were more likely to choose the appointment with the female endoscopist if they were also offered the decoy (p < 0.001). In both experiments, the presence of the decoy decreased perceived difficulty of the screening decision and cognitive effort required to make the decision. Offering disinclined women a male practitioner increased intention to have the test with an endoscopist of the same gender. This suggests that male screening practitioners can be used as decoy options to increase the likelihood that women choose female practitioners and facilitate the screening decision.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in- store purchases. Psychology and Marketing,16, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199905)16:3%3C225:AID-MAR3%3E3.0.CO;2-X
Dumenci, L., Matsuyama, R., Riddle, D. L., Cartwright, L. A., Perera, R. A., Chung, H., et al. (2014). Measurement of cancer health literacy and identification of patients with limited cancer health literacy. Journal of Health Communication,19, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.943377
Farraye, F. A., Wong, M., Hurwitz, S., Puleo, E., Emmons, K., Wallace, M. B., et al. (2004). Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: Are women different from men? The American Journal of Gastroenterology,99, 341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04045.x
Fennema, K., Meyer, D. L., & Owen, N. (1990). Sex of physician: Patient’s preferences and stereotypes. Journal of Family Practice,30, 441–447.
Fidler, H., Hartnett, A., Man, K. C., Derbyshire, I., & Sheil, M. (2000). Sex and familiarity of colonoscopists: Patient preferences. Endoscopy,32, 481–482. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-645
Garcia, J. A., Paterniti, D. A., Romano, P. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (2003). Patient preferences for physician characteristics in university-based primary care clinics. Ethnicity and Disease,13, 259–267.
Graffy, J. (1990). Patient choice in a practice with men and women general practitioners. British Journal of General Practice,40, 13–15.
Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy,13, 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(97)00020-7
Herne, K. (1999). The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Experimental Economics,2, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009925731240
Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,65, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0006
Hollands, G. J., Shemilt, I., Marteau, T. M., Jebb, S. A., Kelly, M. P., Nakamura, R., et al. (2013). Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: Towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions. BMC Public Health,13, 1218. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1218
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research,9, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kerssens, J. J., Bensing, J., & Andela, M. G. (1997). Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Social Science and Medicine,44, 1531–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00272-9
Krell, M., & Hui, S. K. F. (2017). Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Education,4, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256
Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making,21, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100105
Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Changing human behavior to prevent disease: The importance of targeting automatic processes. Science,337, 1492–1495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226918
Menees, S. B., Inadomi, J. M., Korsnes, S., & Elta, G. H. (2005). Women patients’ preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy,62, 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00540-7
Michie, S., & Abraham, C. (2004). Interventions to change health behaviours: Evidence-based or evidence-inspired? Psychology and Health,19, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044031000141199
Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology,4, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04
Plunkett, B. A., Kohli, P., & Milad, M. P. (2002). The importance of physician gender in the selection of an obstetrician or a gynecologist. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,186, 926–928. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123401
Rubaltelli, E., Burra, P., Sartorato, V., Canova, D., Germani, G., Tomat, S., et al. (2008). Strengthening acceptance for xenotransplantation: The case of attraction effect. Xenotransplantation,15, 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2008.00474.x
Schwartz, J. A., & Chapman, G. B. (1999). Are more options always better? The attraction effect in physicians’ decisions about medications. Medical Decision Making,19, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9901900310
Sellers-Rubio, R., & Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J. L. (2015). Testing the decoy effect in the presence of store brands. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,43, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2013-0144
Stockwell, D. H., Woo, P., Jacobson, B. C., Remily, R., Syngal, S., Wolf, J., et al. (2003). Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in women undergoing mammography. The American journal of gastroenterology,98, 1875–1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07577.x
Stoffel, S. T., Hirst, Y., Ghanouni, A., McGregor, L. M., Kerrison, R., Verstraete, W., et al. (2018). Testing active choice for the screening practioner’s gender in a randomised experimental online survey. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141318806322
Stoffel, S. T., Yang, J., Vlaev, I., & von Wagner, C. (2019). Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening. PLoS ONE,14, e0213668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213668
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review,95, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371
Varadarajulu, S., Petruff, C., & Ramsey, W. H. (2002). Patient preferences for gender of endoscopists. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy,56, 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(02)70173-9
Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011). Does the brain calculate value? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,15, 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.008
Vlaev, I., King, D., Dolan, P., & Darzi, A. (2016). Theory and practice of ‘nudging’: Changing health behaviors. Public Administration Review,76, 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12564
von Wagner, C., Hirst, Y., Waller, J., Ghanouni, A., McGregor, L. M., Kerrison, R. S., et al. (2019). The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening—Evidence from online experiments. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.04.001
Zenko, Z., Ekkekakis, P., & Kavetsos, G. (2016). Changing minds: Bounded rationality and heuristic processes in exercise-related judgments and choices. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,5, 337. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000069