Persuasive email messages for patient communication.

To improve health and reduce costs, we need to encourage patients to make better health care decisions. Since email is widely available, it may be useful for patient-directed interventions. However, we know little about how the contents of an email message can influence a health-related decision. We propose a model to understand how patients may process persuasive email messages.

DOES THE MESSAGE MATTER? ENHANCING PATIENT ADHERENCE THROUGH PERSUASIVE MESSAGES

To improve health and reduce costs, we need to encourage patients to make better healthcare decisions. Many informatics interventions are aimed at improving health outcomes by influencing patient behavior. However, we know little about how the content of a message in these interventions can influence a health-related decision. In this research we formulate a conceptual model to help explain and guide the design of “persuasive messages”, those which can change and influence patient behavior. We apply the conceptual model to design persuasive appointment reminder messages using humancentered design principles. Finally, we empirically test our hypotheses in a randomized controlled trial in order to determine the effectiveness of persuasive appointment reminders to reduce the number of missed appointments in a sample of 1016 subjects in a community health center. The results of the study confirm that reminder messages are effective in reducing missed appointment compared with no reminders (p=0.028). Further, reminder messages that incorporate heuristic cues such as authority, commitment, liking, and scarcity are more effective than reminder messages without such cues (p=0.006). However, the addition of systematic arguments or reasons for attending appointments have no effect on appointment adherence (p=0.646). The results of this research suggest that the content of reminder messages may be an important factor in helping to reduce missed appointments.

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

Increasing awareness of colorectal cancer screening through targeted exam room based video messages

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third largest cause of cancer death in the United States. While the disease burden is high, there are proven methods to screen for CRC and detect it at a stage that is amenable to cure. Patients with low health literacy have difficulty navigating the health care system and are at increased risk to not receive preventive care services such as colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). To address this need, an exam-room based video was developed to be played for patients in the privacy of the exam room, while they are waiting to be seen by their medical provider. In roughly 2 minutes, the video informs the patient about CRC and CRCS and how they can successfully complete CRCS. One of the key barriers to completing CRCS is the need to increase patients' knowledge and improve attitudes surrounding CRCS. This study examines the impact of the video on patients' knowledge and attitudes about CRC and CRCS in a medically underserved patient population in Houston, Texas. ^ Sixty-one patients presenting for routine medical care were enrolled in the study. Depending on their randomization, the patients either received routine information about CRC and CRCS or they watched the video. We found that the patients who did watch the video did have improvements in their knowledge and improved attitudes about CRC and CRCS. Future studies will be needed to examine whether the video improves the patients' completion of CRCS.^

Point of decision signs and stair use in a university worksite setting: General versus specific messages

Point-of-decision signs to promote stair use have been found to be effective in various environments. However, these signs have been more consistently successful in public access settings that use escalators, such as shopping centers and transportation stations, compared to worksite settings, which are more likely to contain elevators that are not directly adjacent to the stairs. Therefore, this study tested the effectiveness of two point-of-decision sign prompts to increase stair use in a university worksite setting. Also, this study investigated the importance of the message content of the signs. One sign displayed a general health promotion message, while the other sign presented more specific information. Overall, this project examined whether the presence of the point-of-decision signs increases stair use. In addition, this research determined whether the general or specific sign promotes greater stair use. ^ Inconspicuous observers measured stair use both before the signs were present and while they were posted. The study setting was the University of Texas School of Nursing, and the target population was anyone who entered the building, including employees, students, and visitors. The study was conducted over six weeks and included two weeks of baseline measurement, two weeks with the general sign posted, and two weeks with the specific sign posted. Each sign was displayed on a stand in the decision point area near the stairs and the elevator. Logistic regression was used to analyze the data. ^ After adjustment for covariates, the odds of stair use were significantly greater during the intervention period than the baseline period. Furthermore, the specific sign period showed significantly greater odds of stair use than the general sign period. These results indicate that a point-of-decision sign intervention can be effective at promoting stair use in a university worksite setting and that a sign with a specific health information message may be more effective at promoting stair use than a sign with a general health promotion message. These findings can be considered when planning future worksite and university based stair promotion interventions.^