Default Option Nudging Intervention to Improve the Adherence Rates of Cancer Screening
26. juni 2026 opdateret af: Zhisheng Zheng, Harbin Medical University
Default Option Nudging Intervention to Improve the Adherence Rates of Cancer Screening in High-risk Population: Randomized Controlled Trial and Intervention Disclosure Analysis
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a behavioral "nudge" strategy, specifically a default option, can improve screening participation in populations at high risk for lung and stomach cancer. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Does presenting a screening appointment as a default option increase the likelihood that high-risk individuals will choose to be screened?
- How do participants react, and what is their level of acceptance, when the nudge intervention is disclosed to them?
- Does this transparency (disclosing the nudge) change their subsequent screening decisions? Researchers will compare a default option group to a standard control group to see if the nudge effectively increases screening adherence.
Participants will:
- Read a short educational text about lung or stomach cancer and its screening.
- Complete an online questionnaire.
- Make a decision regarding a simulated cancer screening appointment.
- Read a disclosure explaining the behavioral nudge strategy used during the study.
- Re-evaluate their screening decision and answer questions regarding their attitude toward the nudge.
Studieoversigt
Status
Afsluttet
Intervention / Behandling
Undersøgelsestype
Interventionel
Tilmelding (Faktiske)
1200
Fase
- Ikke anvendelig
Kontakter og lokationer
Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.
Studiesteder
-
-
Heilongjiang
-
Harbin, Heilongjiang, Kina, 150081
- Harbin Medical University
-
-
Deltagelseskriterier
Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.
Berettigelseskriterier
Aldre berettiget til at studere
- Voksen
- Ældre voksen
Tager imod sunde frivillige
Ja
Beskrivelse
Inclusion Criteria:
- High-risk population of lung cancer or gastric cancer.
- Lung cancer high-risk definition (based on the 2024 Lung Cancer Screening and Early Diagnosis and Treatment Program organized by the National Health Commission of the PRC): Age ≥50 years and pack-years of smoking ≥20, including former smoking ≥20 pack-years, but smoking cessation less than 15 years (Note: Pack-years of smoking = number of packs smoked per day × number of years smoked).
- Gastric cancer high-risk definition (based on the 2024 Gastric Cancer Screening and Early Diagnosis and Treatment Program organized by the National Health Commission of the PRC): Age ≥45 years old and living in areas with a high incidence of gastric cancer (Liaoning, Fujian, Gansu, Shandong, Jiangsu).
- Ability to read and comprehend simplified Chinese.
- The informed consent statement was read and confirmed.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Reading impairment preventing independent questionnaire completion.
- Failure to pass attention checks and logical consistency tests embedded within the questionnaire.
Studieplan
Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.
Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?
Design detaljer
- Primært formål: Sundhedstjenesteforskning
- Tildeling: Randomiseret
- Interventionel model: Parallel tildeling
- Maskning: Dobbelt
Våben og indgreb
Deltagergruppe / Arm |
Intervention / Behandling |
|---|---|
|
Ingen indgriben: control group (lung cancer screening)
Control group participants received neutral, informational content about lung cancer and screening.
This content included lung cancer's status as a leading cause of cancer mortality, the challenges of late-stage diagnosis, and LDCT as the gold standard screening method.
Participants were informed that high-risk individuals, particularly long-term smokers, require annual screening due to elevated cancer risk, with each participant explicitly told they qualified as high-risk due to their smoking history.
Meanwhile, CanSPUC and its purpose were also shown to the participants.
The screening participation question for controls was framed as: "We provide available time slots for free lung cancer screening.
You can directly view available appointment times and make reservations according to your preference.
Would you like to schedule lung cancer screening?"
|
|
|
Eksperimentel: intervention group (lung cancer screening)
Intervention participants received the same neutral information plus a default option nudge.
The critical modification involved reframing the screening participation measure as: "We have already scheduled a free lung cancer screening appointment for you, which you can attend at your convenience.
If you do not wish to participate, please indicate below."
We also default to "Yes, I would like to make an appointment for lung cancer screening and see the available hours for lung cancer screening" for this question.
|
Participants in this arm are subjected to a behavioral "nudge" using a default option mechanism during a simulated online appointment process for cancer screening.
Instead of being asked to actively schedule an appointment (an opt-in approach), the screening appointment is presented to them as pre-selected or pre-scheduled (an opt-out approach).
Furthermore, to evaluate the ethical and behavioral impact of transparency, this intervention uniquely includes a "disclosure" phase: after the initial decision, participants are explicitly informed about the nudge strategy that was just applied to them, and their screening intention is immediately re-measured.
|
|
Ingen indgriben: control group (gastric cancer screening)
Control group participants received neutral, informational content about gastric cancer and screening.
This content included gastric cancer's status as a cause of cancer mortality, the challenges of late-stage diagnosis, and endoscope as the gold standard screening method.
Participants were informed that high-risk individuals require screening per 5 years, with each participant explicitly told they qualified as high-risk due to their living regions.
Meanwhile, CanSPUC and its purpose were also shown to the participants.
The screening participation question for controls was framed as: "We provide available time slots for free gastric cancer screening.
You can directly view available appointment times and make reservations according to your preference.
Would you like to schedule gastric cancer screening?"
|
|
|
Eksperimentel: intervention group (gastric cancer screening)
Intervention participants received the same neutral information plus a default option nudge.
The critical modification involved reframing the screening participation measure as: "We have already scheduled a free gastric cancer screening appointment for you, which you can attend at your convenience.
If you do not wish to participate, please indicate below."
We also default to "Yes, I would like to make an appointment for gastric cancer screening and see the available hours for lung cancer screening" for this question.
|
Participants in this arm are subjected to a behavioral "nudge" using a default option mechanism during a simulated online appointment process for cancer screening.
Instead of being asked to actively schedule an appointment (an opt-in approach), the screening appointment is presented to them as pre-selected or pre-scheduled (an opt-out approach).
Furthermore, to evaluate the ethical and behavioral impact of transparency, this intervention uniquely includes a "disclosure" phase: after the initial decision, participants are explicitly informed about the nudge strategy that was just applied to them, and their screening intention is immediately re-measured.
|
Hvad måler undersøgelsen?
Primære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Accept the Cancer Screening Appointment
Tidsramme: Immediately after the default option intervention
|
This outcome is assessed via a dichotomous choice (Yes/No) embedded in the simulated online scheduling system within the questionnaire.
The value reported will be the percentage of participants who choose to accept and schedule the screening appointment.
|
Immediately after the default option intervention
|
Sekundære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Attitude Score Towards the Default Option Nudge
Tidsramme: Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
This measure is assessed via a self-reported questionnaire using a Likert scale.
Scores range from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates a very negative attitude and 5 indicates a very positive attitude.
Higher scores represent a better attitude towards the nudge strategy.
|
Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
|
Self-Reported Score of the Nudge's Influence on Decision-Making
Tidsramme: Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
This measure is assessed via a self-reported questionnaire using a Likert scale.
Scores range from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates no influence and 5 indicates extreme influence.
Higher scores indicate that the participant felt the default option had a greater influence on their appointment decision.
|
Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
|
Acceptance Score of the Default Option Nudge in Public Health Services
Tidsramme: Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
This measure is assessed via a self-reported questionnaire using a Likert scale.
Scores range from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates completely unacceptable and 5 indicates completely acceptable.
Higher scores indicate higher social acceptance and suitability of using such behavioral nudges in public health promotion.
|
Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Accept the Appointment After Disclosure
Tidsramme: Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
This outcome is assessed via a secondary dichotomous choice (Yes/No) presented after the participant reads the disclosure statement explaining the nudge.
The value reported is the percentage of participants who choose to accept the screening at this final stage.
|
Immediately after the disclosure of the intervention
|
Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere
Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.
Sponsor
Datoer for undersøgelser
Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.
Studer store datoer
Studiestart (Faktiske)
27. april 2025
Primær færdiggørelse (Faktiske)
1. juni 2025
Studieafslutning (Faktiske)
1. juni 2025
Datoer for studieregistrering
Først indsendt
23. juni 2026
Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier
26. juni 2026
Først opslået (Faktiske)
2. juli 2026
Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler
Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)
2. juli 2026
Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier
26. juni 2026
Sidst verificeret
1. juni 2026
Mere information
Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse
Yderligere relevante MeSH-vilkår
- Neoplasmer efter sted
- Neoplasmer
- Luftvejssygdomme
- Gastrointestinale neoplasmer
- Neoplasmer i fordøjelsessystemet
- Sygdomme i fordøjelsessystemet
- Gastrointestinale sygdomme
- Mavesygdomme
- Lungesygdomme
- Neoplasmer i luftvejene
- Thoracale neoplasmer
- Opførsel
- Behandlingsoverholdelse og compliance
- Sundhedsadfærd
- Patientaccept af sundhedspleje
- Neoplasmer i maven
- Lungeneoplasmer
- Patient Compliance
Andre undersøgelses-id-numre
- HMUIRB2025029PRE
Plan for individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)
Planlægger du at dele individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)?
JA
IPD-planbeskrivelse
All collected de-identified individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in the final publication.
This includes demographic characteristics, group allocation, behavioral screening decisions, and responses related to attitudes toward the disclosure intervention.
IPD-delingstidsramme
Data will be available beginning 6 months and ending 36 months following the publication of the article.
IPD-delingsadgangskriterier
Researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal.
IPD-deling Understøttende informationstype
- STUDY_PROTOCOL
- SAP
- ICF
Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt
Ingen
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt
Ingen
Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .