91É«Ç鯬

°Õ³ó±ðÌýÌýof “nudgingâ€� is based on the idea we can push people gently towards doing what’s best for their health.

But what isÌýbest? And who gets to decide?ÌýIs it your mum, your doctor, the health department or you?

When could nudging help?

°Õ³ó±ðÌýÌýis that a benevolent "choice architect"Ìýcan rearrange information and the environment to make it easier for us to do the "right thing"Ìýwhile preserving our freedom of choice.

The choice architect could be an organisation like theÌýÌýor theÌýNew South Wales Behavioural Insights Unit. But it could also be an individual person in control of your environment, like a shop owner, a school principal or your boss.

The right thing isÌýÌýas something that improves public well-being with minimal cost to individual well-being.

Examples of how nudging is being used to influence our health choices in Australia include:

  • campaigns to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics, such as getting doctors and patients toÌý. This aims to increase your commitment to doing something you agree with

  • ¾±²Ô³Ù°ù´Ç»å³Ü³¦¾±²Ô²µÌýÌýfor cigarettes. This reduces the influence of marketing and reminds people of the consequences of smoking without restricting availability or choice of cigarettes brands

  • Ìýfrom an "opt in"Ìýsystem to an "opt out"Ìýsystem. This idea hasÌýÌýof organ donation registration in other countries, where it is still easy to opt out if you have objections to joining.

When is nudging controversial?

Nudging can be controversial. Many health situations involve a trade-off between benefits and side-effects, length of life and quality of life, or individual freedom and public cost.

Deciding what's best gets complicated when people value different things, and this can vary byÌý.

For example, guidelines to prevent heart disease and stroke recommendÌýÌýfrom medication to reduce their risk, including healthy people.

Is it OK to nudge healthy people into taking medication if we know it will reduce their risk?

Some might agree thatÌýit's worth the cost, inconvenience and potential side-effects of cholesterol-lowering medication to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke in the next five years fromÌý.

But others may preferÌýto change their diet and exercise habits to reduce their risk. Older people may decide it's not worth theÌýÌýif they add blood pressure-lowering medication to their existing medications.

Some people may be comfortable with this level of risk and decide to do nothing at all.

If we nudge people in a way they are not aware of, these different values and preferences aren'tÌýincluded when deciding which option to take.

ResearchÌýsuggests thatÌýpeopleÌýÌýwhen they are being nudged, and why the choice architect has chosen a particular course of action.

What options are there?

Even when we think about the same sort of health decision (for instance, how we use antibiotics),Ìýchoice architects could use different approaches. Some are more obviousÌýor offer more choiceÌýthan others:

  1. shared decision makingÌý¾±²õÌýÌýas the "gold standard". This process allows doctors and patients to talk through the options, and the evidence for their benefits and harms. One example is to use aÌýÌýto explain how aÌýÌýis likely to disappear in a few days whether or not you take antibiotics

  2. explicit nudgeÌýmoves people towards the "right"Ìýchoice when they want to help themselves make a change or hadn’t realised they are an outlier compared with their peers. This could encourage GPs who prescribe the most antibiotics to commit to not using them unnecessarily for cold and flu over winter

  3. implicit nudgeÌýmoves people towards the "right"Ìýchoice without stating this directly. ThisÌýÌýwhen everyone agrees on what should be done (or would agree if they were asked) but habit, time limitations or effort prevents them from following through. An example of this might be setting the "right"Ìýdefault in software that hospital doctors use when prescribing medicines to encourage them to use antibiotics appropriately

  4. regulationÌýmay be considered more paternalistic but thisÌýÌýto restrict options that have serious adverse consequences for the public or individuals. This option might be appropriateÌýto make it difficult for doctors to prescribe the strongest antibiotics and so reserve them for serious antibiotic-resistant infections.

Ìý

What can you do?

If you need to make a decision about your healthÌýand are concerned about the direction in which you might be being nudged, you can ask you doctor or health care professionalÌýthe followingÌý:

  • do I really need this test, treatment or procedure?

  • what are the risks?

  • are there simpler, safer options?

  • what happens if I don’t do anything?

  • what are the costs?

The ConversationYou could also look forÌý; these can help you to better understand the benefits and potential consequencesÌýof all options for a range of common health conditions.


Ìýis aÌýResearch Fellow,Ìý.ÌýÌý¾±²õÌýProfessor of Cognitive Psychology,Ìý.Ìý Ìý

Ìý

This article was originally published onÌý. Read theÌý.