Referral Rates for Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Eligible Inpatients After Implementation of a Default Opt-Out Decision Pathway in the Electronic Medical Record.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Adusumalli S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7809585 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Referral Rates for Cardiac Rehabilitation Among Eligible Inpatients After Implementation of a Default Opt-Out Decision Pathway in the Electronic Medical Record.
Adusumalli Srinath S Jolly Elizabeth E Chokshi Neel P NP Gitelman Yevginiy Y Rareshide Charles A L CAL Kolansky Daniel M DM Patel Mitesh S MS
JAMA network open 20210104 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:High levels of cooperation are a central feature of human society, and conditional cooperation has been proposed as one proximal mechanism to support this. The counterforce of free-riding can, however, undermine cooperation and as such a number of external mechanisms have been proposed to ameliorate the effects of free-riding. One such mechanism is setting cooperation as the default (i.e., an opt-out default). We posit, however, that in dynamic settings where people can observe and condition their actions on others' behaviour, 'lone wolf' defectors undermine initial cooperation encouraged by an opt-out default, while 'good shepherds' defeat the free-riding encouraged by an opt-in default. Thus, we examine the dynamic emergence of conditional cooperation under different default settings. Specifically, we develop a game theoretical model to analyse cooperation under defaults for cooperation (opt-out) and defection (opt-in). The model predicts that the 'lone wolf' effect is stronger than the 'good shepherd' effect, which - if anticipated by players - should strategically deter free-riding under opt-out and cooperation under opt-in. Our experimental games confirm the existence of both 'lone wolf' defectors and 'good shepherd' cooperators, and that the 'lone wolf'effect is stronger in the context of organ donation registration behaviour. We thus show a potential 'dark side' to conditional cooperation ('lone wolf effect') and draw implications for the adoption of an opt-out organ donation policy.
| S-EPMC7265288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo increase postmortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the direct impact of consent policy defaults per se on deceased organ recovery rates when considering the role of the family in the decision-making process. This study does not take into account any indirect effects of defaults, such as potential psychological and behavioural effects on individuals and their relatives.DesignBased on previous work regarding consent policies, we created a conceptual model of the decision-making process for deceased organ recovery that included any scenario that could be directly influenced by opt-in or opt-out policies. We then applied this model to internationally published data of the consent process to determine how frequently policy defaults could apply.Main outcome measuresWe measure the direct impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on deceased organ recovery.ResultsOur analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. They only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The direct impact of consent policy defaults is typically circumscribed to a range of 0%-5% of all opportunities for organ recovery. Our study also shows that the intervention of the family improves organ retrieval under opt-in but hinders it under opt-out.ConclusionsThis study may warn policy makers that, by emphasising the need to introduce presumed consent to increase organ recovery rates, they might be overestimating the influence of the default and underestimating the power granted to families.
| S-EPMC9462118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHR) are becoming an integral part of the health system in many developed countries, though implementations and settings vary across countries. Some countries have adopted an opt-out policy, in which patients are enrolled in the EHR system following a default nudge, while others have applied an opt-in policy, where patients have to take action to opt into the system. While opt-in systems may exhibit lower levels of active user requests for access, this contrasts with opt-out systems where a notable percentage of users may passively retain access. Thus, our research endeavor aims to explore facilitators and barriers that contribute to explaining EHR usage (i.e., actively accessing the EHR system) in two countries with either an opt-in or opt-out setting, exemplified by France and Austria.MethodsA qualitative exploratory approach using a semi-structured interview guideline was undertaken in both countries: 1) In Austria, with four homogenously composed group discussions, and 2) in France, with 19 single patient interviews. The data were collected from October 2020 to January 2021.ResultsInfluencing factors were categorized into twelve subcategories. Patients have similar experiences in both countries with regard to all facilitating categories, for instance, the role of health providers, awareness of EHR and social norms. However, we highlighted important differences between the two systems regarding hurdles impeding EHR usage, namely, a lack of communication as well as transparency or information security about EHR.ConclusionImplementing additional safeguards to enhance privacy protection and supporting patients to improve their digital ability may help to diminish the perception of EHR-induced barriers and improve patients' health and commitment in the long term.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the differences and similarities will help to develop practical implications to tackle the problem of low EHR usage rates in the long run. This problem is prevalent in countries with both types of EHR default settings.
| S-EPMC11003073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLung cancer screening (LCS) enables the delivery of smoking cessation interventions to a population experiencing long-term tobacco dependence, but the optimal delivery method remains unclear. Here, we report uptake and short-term outcomes of an 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy in an LCS cohort.MethodsIndividuals currently smoking tobacco who attended a face-to-face lung health check in the SUMMIT study (NCT03934866) were offered very brief advice on smoking cessation and where possible, an 'opt-out' referral to their local stop smoking service (SSS). Aggregate data on referral outcomes were obtained from each SSS individually.Results33.7% (n=2090/6203) of individuals currently smoking tobacco consented to a practitioner-made 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral. 42.7% (n=893/2090) of these individuals resided in boroughs where SSS were not present or required self-referral. Males (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.16), younger individuals (55-59: aOR 1.70, 60-64: aOR 1.71 and 65-69: aOR 1.78) and those of ethnic minority backgrounds (Asian: aOR 1.31, Black: aOR 1.71 and Mixed: aOR 1.72) were more likely to consent, while individuals from the most deprived socioeconomic quintile were less likely to do so (aOR 0.65).High level of motivation to quit within a defined time frame (aOR 1.92), previous quit attempts in the past 12 months (1-4: aOR 1.65 and ≥5: aOR 1.54) and time to first cigarette of ≤60 min (<5: aOR 2.07, 6-30: aOR 1.55 and 31-60: aOR 1.56) were measures of tobacco dependence associated with a higher likelihood of providing consent.Outcomes were available for 742 referrals. An appointment with the service was accepted by 47.3% (n=351/742) of individuals, following which 65.5% (n=230/351) set a quit date. The 4-week quit rate among those setting a quit date and all individuals referred was 57.4% (n=132/230) and 17.8% (n=132/742), respectively.ConclusionA proactive, 'opt-out' smoking cessation referral strategy for individuals currently smoking tobacco who interact with an LCS programme may be beneficial.
| S-EPMC11804203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMETHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of those sent initial messaging through the EHR portal (9.5% opt-in versus 37.5% in opt-out).Conclusions.
| S-EPMC6768589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This is a randomized controlled pilot study aimed at testing different outreach strategies (opt-in versus opt-out) to increase colorectal cancer screening through completion of mailed home fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT).
| 2227183 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Due to recently proposed changes in the Common Rule regarding the collection of research preferences, there is an increased need for efficient methods to document opt-in research preferences at a population level. Previously, our institution developed an opt-out paper-based workflow that could not be utilized for research in a scalable fashion. This project was designed to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an electronic health record (EHR)-based active opt-in research preferences program. The first phase of implementation required creating and disseminating a patient questionnaire through the EHR portal to populate discreet fields within the EHR indicating patients' preferences for future research study contact (contact) and their willingness to allow anonymised use of excess tissue and fluid specimens (biobank). In the second phase, the questionnaire was presented within a clinic nurse intake workflow in an obstetrical clinic. These permissions were tabulated in registries for use by investigators for feasibility studies and recruitment. The registry was also used for research patient contact management using a new EHR encounter type to differentiate research from clinical encounters. The research permissions questionnaire was sent to 59,670 patients via the EHR portal. Within four months, 21,814 responses (75% willing to participate in biobanking, and 72% willing to be contacted for future research) were received. Each response was recorded within a patient portal encounter to enable longitudinal analysis of responses. We obtained a significantly lower positive response from the 264 females who completed the questionnaire in the obstetrical clinic (55% volunteers for biobank and 52% for contact). We demonstrate that it is possible to establish a research permissions registry using the EHR portal and clinic-based workflows. This patient-centric, population-based, opt-in approach documents preferences in the EHR, allowing linkage of these preferences to health record information.
| S-EPMC5404843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?MethodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection.Study answer and limitations38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected.What this paper addsActive choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.
| S-EPMC4718971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOptimal strategies for population-based outreach for breast cancer screening remain unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect on breast cancer screening of an opt-out automatic mammography referral strategy compared with an opt-in automated telephone message strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2022 to January 2023 at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Participants were female veterans aged 45 to 75 years who were eligible for breast cancer screening and enrolled in VA primary care.InterventionVeterans were randomized 1:1 to receive either an automatic mammography referral (opt-out arm) or an automated telephone call with an option for mammography referral (opt-in arm).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was completed mammography 100 days after outreach. Secondary outcomes were scheduled or completed mammography by 100 days after outreach and referrals canceled if mammography was not scheduled within 90 days. Both intention-to-treat analyses and a restricted analysis were conducted. The restricted analysis excluded veterans who were unable to be reached by telephone (eg, a nonworking number) or who were found to be ineligible after randomization (eg, medical record documentation of recent mammography).ResultsOf 883 veterans due for mammography (mean [SD] age, 59.13 [8.24] years; 656 [74.3%] had received prior mammography), 442 were randomized to the opt-in group and 441 to the opt-out group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of completed mammography at 100 days between the opt-out and opt-in groups (67 [15.2%] vs 66 [14.9%]; P = .90) or the secondary outcome of completed or scheduled mammography (84 [19%] vs 106 [24.0%]; P = .07). A higher number of referrals were canceled in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (104 [23.6%] vs 24 [5.4%]; P < .001). The restricted analysis demonstrated similar results except more veterans completed or scheduled mammography within 100 days in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (102 of 388 [26.3%] vs 80 of 415 [19.3%]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, an opt-out population-based breast cancer screening outreach approach compared with an opt-in approach did not result in a significant difference in mammography completion but did lead to substantially more canceled mammography referrals, increasing staff burden.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05313737.
| S-EPMC10495926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleVaccination uptake is a major strategy to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 and curb the transmission of COVID-19. However, many people remain unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.ObjectiveUsing default nudges, the present study examines (a) whether opt-out policy and its improvements could increase intention and attitude to get vaccinated and (b) whether these default effects differ across diverse risk-perception groups.MethodAn online experiment with 1926 unvaccinated Chinese respondents was conducted in February 2021. We measured willingness to be vaccinated after informing opt-in policy, standard opt-out policy, and its five improvements (opt-out education, opt-out opportunity, opt-out social norm, opt-out feedback, and opt-out opportunity). Risk perception of the pandemic of COVID-19 and vaccination were also measured.Results(a) Opt-out policy and its improvement (except the opt-out transparency) increased intentions to be vaccinated. Policies with a vaccination default did not weaken people's attitude toward policy and policymakers compared with the opt-in policy, but participants in the transparent improvement group reported lower freedom of choice than those in the opt-out group. (b) Further latent profile analysis revealed four classes underlying risk perception: risk exaggerators, risk deniers, disease-specific risk perceivers, and vaccine-specific risk perceivers. But there was no conclusive evidence that the effect of risk perception differs as a function of defaults.ConclusionsThese findings provide new psychological evidence for formulating more targeted vaccination policies and highlight the importance of risk perception to understand vaccination intentions.
| S-EPMC9217684 | biostudies-literature