CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
Behavioural nudges to reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department (NUDG-ED): a 2 × 2 factorial, pragmatic cluster randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеPragmatic Clinical TrialМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Altinger Gemma, Sharma Sweekriti, Maher Chris G, Cullen Louise, McCaffery Kirsten, Linder Jeffrey A, Buchbinder Rachelle, Harris Ian A, Coiera Enrico, MBiostat Qiang Li, Devaux Anthony, Howard Kirsten, Coggins Andrew, Middleton Paul M, Gunja Naren, Ferguson Ian, Chan Trevor, Mallows James, Darby Samantha, Tambree Karen, van Wyk Aidan, Traeger Adrian C, NUDG-ED Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Low-value care exposes patients to unnecessary risk and wastes scarce health resources. We aimed to determine if patient- or clinician-directed nudges could reduce low-value care for low back pain in the emergency department.
METHODS: We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial involving patients with low back pain presenting to emergency departments. Eight emergency departments were randomized to receive patient nudges (6 electronic information posters discouraging unnecessary imaging and opioids, displayed on 55-inch screens in waiting rooms), clinician nudges (3 electronic health record alerts that provided indications for lumbar spine imaging and suggested alternatives to opioids), both patient and clinician nudges, or no nudges. The primary outcome was the proportion of encounters for low back pain with low-value care, defined as non-indicated lumbar spine imaging test, opioid prescription at discharge, or both. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), adjusted for baseline and clustering.
RESULTS: There were 3770 encounters for low back pain during the study period. The overall baseline prevalence of low-value care was 41.6%. During the intervention period, the proportion of encounters with low-value care reduced to 36.4% with patient nudges versus 38.1% without, but the difference was not significant (adjusted OR 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.27). The proportion of encounters with low-value care was 39.4% with clinician nudges versus 35.0% without (adjusted OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.05). We did not observe an interaction effect between the interventions (p = 0.4). The patient nudge may have reduced strong beliefs among patients in the value of imaging for low back pain. We found no important differences in secondary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION: Nudges - including waiting room information posters targeting patients and electronic health record alerts targeting clinicians - did not reduce low-value care in emergency departments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12623001000695.
METHODS: We conducted a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized controlled trial involving patients with low back pain presenting to emergency departments. Eight emergency departments were randomized to receive patient nudges (6 electronic information posters discouraging unnecessary imaging and opioids, displayed on 55-inch screens in waiting rooms), clinician nudges (3 electronic health record alerts that provided indications for lumbar spine imaging and suggested alternatives to opioids), both patient and clinician nudges, or no nudges. The primary outcome was the proportion of encounters for low back pain with low-value care, defined as non-indicated lumbar spine imaging test, opioid prescription at discharge, or both. We calculated odds ratios (ORs), adjusted for baseline and clustering.
RESULTS: There were 3770 encounters for low back pain during the study period. The overall baseline prevalence of low-value care was 41.6%. During the intervention period, the proportion of encounters with low-value care reduced to 36.4% with patient nudges versus 38.1% without, but the difference was not significant (adjusted OR 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.27). The proportion of encounters with low-value care was 39.4% with clinician nudges versus 35.0% without (adjusted OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.05). We did not observe an interaction effect between the interventions (p = 0.4). The patient nudge may have reduced strong beliefs among patients in the value of imaging for low back pain. We found no important differences in secondary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION: Nudges - including waiting room information posters targeting patients and electronic health record alerts targeting clinicians - did not reduce low-value care in emergency departments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12623001000695.