Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Gesundheitswesen 2022; 84(11): 1059-1066
DOI: 10.1055/a-1709-0591
Originalarbeit

Wirksamkeit und ethische Bewertung von Nudging-Interventionen zur Förderung des Selbstmanagements bei Diabetes Mellitus Typ 2

Effectiveness and Ethical Evaluation of Nudging to Promote the Self-Management in Diabetes Mellitus Type 2
Oliver Rauprich
1   Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
,
Meilin Möllenkamp
2   Lehrstuhl für Management im Gesundheitswesen, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
,
Jennifer Reimann
3   Institut für Sozial- und Gesundheitsrecht, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Bochum, Germany
,
Stefan Huster
3   Institut für Sozial- und Gesundheitsrecht, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Bochum, Germany
,
Jonas Schreyögg
2   Lehrstuhl für Management im Gesundheitswesen, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
,
Georg Marckmann
1   Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
› Author Affiliations Förderung Das Projekt wurde vom Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG) unter dem Kennzeichnen ZMV I 1-2516 FSB 018 gefördert.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Nudges bieten vielfältige Möglichkeiten zur Förderung von gesundheitsbezogenem Verhalten im Alltag, die klassische Public Health-Maßnahmen ergänzen können. Vor diesem Hintergrund führten wir vorläufige Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit und zu ethischen Aspekten verschiedener Nudges zur Förderung des Selbstmanagements von Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 im Kontext von Disease-Management-Programmen (DMPs) durch.

Methodik Die ethische Bewertung der Nudges erfolgte im systematischen Rahmen von Marckmann et al. (2015) zur Public Health-Ethik. Die bisherige Evidenz zur Wirksamkeit von Nudges wurde mittels einer narrativen Literaturübersicht zusammenfassend dargestellt.

Ergebnisse Zielvereinbarungen mit Umsetzungsplänen, Erinnerungen, Feedback, Sammeltermine bei Ärzten, Peer Mentoring sowie Verhaltensverträge sind Nudging-Interventionen mit mäßiger Eingriffstiefe in die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Patienten und ethisch relativ unproblematischen Voraussetzungen, die sich in verschiedenen Kontexten bewährt haben. Automatische Einschreibungen zu Patientenschulungen, Einbindung der Lebenspartner, Konfrontation mit sozialen Normen und Verwendung von Schockbildern können ebenfalls wirksam sein, greifen jedoch tiefer in die Freiheit und Privatsphäre der Patienten ein und unterliegen stärkeren ethischen Voraussetzungen und Beschränkungen. Die Evidenzlage ist insbesondere bei Maßnahmen zur sozialen Unterstützung durch Angehörige und Peers noch unzureichend.

Schlussfolgerungen Nudging bietet ein breites Spektrum gezielter Interventionen zur Förderung des Selbstmanage-ments von Patienten mit chronischen Erkrankungen, dessen Potenzial bislang noch zu wenig erschlossen wurde. Besonders vielversprechende Maßnahmen sollten in Pilotstudien auf ihre Akzeptanz, Wirksamkeit und Kosteneffektivität im Rahmen von DMPs evaluiert werden.

Abstract

Background Nudges offer a wide range of options for protecting health in everyday life that supplements traditional public health measures. Against this background, we conducted initial investigations on the effectiveness and ethical aspects of different nudges for promoting self-management of patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 in the context of Disease Management Programs (DMPs).

Methods The ethical assessment of the nudges was done within the systematic framework of Marckmann et al. (2015) for public health ethics. The existing evidence on the effectiveness of nudges was summarised by means of a narrative literature review.

Results Target agreements with implementation plans, reminder, feedback reports, shared appointments of patients with physicians, peer mentoring, and behavior contracts are nudging interventions with moderate interference with personal rights and relatively unproblematic ethical requirements, which have demonstrated effectiveness in different contexts. Default enrollment for patient training courses, involvement of partners, confrontation with social norms, and shocking pictures may be effective as well; however, they interfere more deeply with the freedom and privacy of patients and, therefore, are bound to stronger ethical requirements and restrictions. The evidence base is still insufficient, especially for social support measures by relatives and peers.

Conclusions Nudging offers a wide range of targeted interventions for supporting self-management of patients with chronic diseases, the potential of which has not yet been fully realized. Particularly promising interventions should be tested in pilot studies for their acceptance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in the context of DMPs.

Schlüsselwörter

Nudging - Diabetes Mellitus Typ 2 - Ethik - Gesundheitsökonomie

Key words

nudging - diabetes mellitus type 2 - ethics - health economics

Zusätzliches Material



Publication History

Article published online:
23 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Matjasko JL, Cawley JH, Baker-Goering MM. et al. Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: Illustrative examples and promising directions. Am J Prev Med 2016; 50: 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vlaev I, King D, Dolan P. et al. The theory and practice of “nudging”. Changing health behaviors. Public Adm Rev 2016; 76: 550-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shaffer VA. Nudges for health policy: Effectiveness and limitations. Mo L Rev 2017; 82: 727
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Loewenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp KG. Protecting people from themselves: Using decision errors to help people improve their health. JAMA 2007; 298: 2415-2417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Hansen PG, Jespersen AM. Nudge and the manipulation of choice. Eur J Risk Regul 2013; 4: 3-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sunstein CR. The Ethics of Nudging. Yale J. on Reg 2015; 32: 413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 King D, Greaves F, Vlaev I. et al. Approaches based on behavioral economics could help nudge patients and providers toward lower health spending growth. Health affairs (Project Hope) 2013; 32: 661-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wilkinson TM. Nudging and manipulation. Political Stud 2013; 61: 341-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Huster S. Selbstbestimmung, Gerechtigkeit und Gesundheit. Normative Aspekte von Public Health. 1. Aufl Baden-Baden: Nomos; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Huster S. Die ethische Neutralität des Staates. Eine liberale Interpretation der Verfassung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; 2017
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mills C. The heteronomy of choice architecture. Rev Philos Psychol 2015; 6: 495-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jacobs E, Rathmann W. Epidemiologie des Diabetes in Deutschland. In: Deutsche Diabetes Gesellschaft (DDG), diabetesDE – Deutsche Diabetes-Hilfe, Hrsg. Deutscher Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2018. Die Bestandsaufnahme. Mainz: Kirchheim+Co GmbH; 2018: 9-22
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Mohrmann M, Altin S, Fuhrmann P. et al. Zukünftige Ausgestaltung der Diabetesversorgung. Der Diabetologe 2018; 14: 470-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fuchs S, Henschke C, Blümel M. et al. Disease management programs for type 2 diabetes in Germany: A systematic literature review evaluating effectiveness. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 2014; 111: 453-463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Du Y, Heidemann C, Rosario AS. et al. Changes in diabetes care indicators: Findings from German National Health Interview and Examination Surveys 1997–1999 and 2008–2011. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2015; 3: e000135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Haller N, Kulzer B. Diabetesschulung. In: Deutsche Diabetes Gesellschaft (DDG), diabetesDE – Deutsche Diabetes-Hilfe, Hrsg. Deutscher Gesundheitsbericht Diabetes 2018. Die Bestandsaufnahme. Mainz: Kirchheim+Co GmbH; 2018: 57-63
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Laxy M, Holle R. Selbstmanagement der Patienten: Intensive Einbindung lohnt. Dtsch Arztebl International 2014; 111: 20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Laxy M, Mielck A, Hunger M. et al. The association between patient-reported self-management behavior, intermediate clinical outcomes, and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the KORA-A study. Diabetes care 2014; 37: 1604-1612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mogler BK, Shu SB, Fox CR. et al. Using insights from behavioral economics and social psychology to help patients manage chronic diseases. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 711-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research\textregistered 2003; 413: 43-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Möllenkamp M, Zeppernick M, Schreyögg J. The effectiveness of nudges in improving the self-management of patients with chronic diseases: A systematic literature review. Health Policy 2019; 123: 1199-1209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Marckmann G, Schmidt H, Sofaer N. et al. Putting public health ethics into practice: A systematic framework. Frontiers in Public Health 2015; 3: 23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Broers VJV, Breucker de C, van den Broucke S. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of nudging to increase fruit and vegetable choice. Eur J Public Health 2017; 27: 912-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Blaga OM, Vasilescu L, Chereches RM. Use and effectiveness of behavioural economics in interventions for lifestyle risk factors of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review with policy implications. PPH 2018; 138: 100-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kemmerer A, Möllers C, Steinbeis M. et al. Choice architecture in democracies: Exploring the legitimacy of nudging. 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Kreßner M. Gesteuerte Gesundheit: Grund und Grenzen verhaltenswissenschaftlich informierter Gesundheitsförderung und Krankheitsprävention. Nomos; Verlag: 2018
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Loewenstein G, Bryce C, Hagmann D. et al. Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy 2015; 1: 35-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Benartzi S, Beshears J, Milkman KL. et al. Should governments invest more in nudging?. Psychol Sci 2017; 28: 1041-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chapman GB, Li M, Leventhal H. et al. Default clinic appointments promote influenza vaccination uptake without a displacement effect. Behavioral Science & Policy 2016; 2: 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lehmann BA, Chapman GB, Franssen FME. et al. Changing the default to promote influenza vaccination among health care workers. Vaccine 2016; 34: 1389-1392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV). Entwicklung der Teilnehmerzahlen: DMP Diabetes Typ 2 – Anzahl der eingeschriebenen Patienten. Online: https://www.kbv.de/html/8444.php letzter Zugriff: 11.02.2019
  • 34 Allcott H. Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ 2011; 95: 1082-1095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D et al. MINDSPACE: influencing behaviour for public policy. Institute of Government, London, UK 2010. Online: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/ default/files/publications/MINDSPACE.pdf letzter Zugriff: 11.02.2019
  • 36 Hou C, Xu Q, Diao S. et al. Mobile phone applications and self-management of diabetes: A systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression of 21 randomized trials and GRADE. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018; 20: 2009-2013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Alsaleh E, Windle R, Blake H. Behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in adults with coronary heart disease in Jordan. BMC public health 2016; 16: 643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cruz J, Brooks D, Marques A. Walk2Bactive: A randomised controlled trial of a physical activity-focused behavioural intervention beyond pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic Respir Dis 2016; 13: 57-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Steiner JF, Shainline MR, Dahlgren JZ. et al. Optimizing number and timing of appointment reminders: a randomized trial. The American journal of managed care 2018; 24: 377-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Austin S, Wolfe BL. The effect of patient reminders and gas station gift cards on patient adherence to testing guidelines for diabetes. WMJ 2011; 110: 132-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tamban C, Isip-Tan IT, Jimeno C. Use of short message services (sms) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. JAFES 2013; 28: 143-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Arora S, Peters AL, Burner E. et al. Trial to examine text message-based mHealth in emergency department patients with diabetes (TExT-MED): A randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2014; 63: 745-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Thrasher JF, Rousu MC, Hammond D. et al. Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and “plain” cigarette packaging: Evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy 2011; 102: 41-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D. et al. The effect of graphic warnings on sugary-drink purchasing. Psychol Sci 2018; 29: 1321-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Altmann S, Traxler C. Nudges at the dentist. European Economic Review 2014; 72: 19-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chamany S, Walker EA, Schechter CB. et al. Telephone intervention to improve diabetes control: A randomized trial in the New York City A1c Registry. Am J Prev Med 2015; 49: 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Nadkarni A, Kucukarslan SN, Bagozzi RP. et al. A simple and promising tool to improve self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010; 89: 30-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Volpp KG, John LK, Troxel AB. et al. Financial incentive-based approaches for weight loss: A randomized trial. JAMA 2008; 300: 2631-2637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 John LK, Loewenstein G, Troxel AB. et al. Financial incentives for extended weight loss: A randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26: 621-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Gupta L, Khandelwal D, Lal PR. et al. Factors determining the success of therapeutic lifestyle interventions in diabetes – Role of partner and family support. Eur J Endocrinol 2019; 15: 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Seidel AJ, Franks MM, Stephens MAP. et al. Spouse control and type 2 diabetes management: Moderating effects of dyadic expectations for spouse involvement. Fam Relat 2012; 61: 698-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Edelman D, Gierisch JM, McDuffie JR. et al. Shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30: 99-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Long JA, Jahnle EC, Richardson DM. et al. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 416-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Köberlein-Neu J, Hoffmann F. Das Stepped Wedge Design: Stufenlos regelbar?. Z Evidenz Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes 2017; 126: 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar