When peer comparison information harms physician well-being

Joseph S Reiff, Justin C Zhang, Jana Gallus, Hengchen Dai, Nathaniel M Pedley, Sitaram Vangala, Richard K Leuchter, Gregory Goshgarian, Craig R Fox, Maria Han, Daniel M Croymans, Joseph S Reiff, Justin C Zhang, Jana Gallus, Hengchen Dai, Nathaniel M Pedley, Sitaram Vangala, Richard K Leuchter, Gregory Goshgarian, Craig R Fox, Maria Han, Daniel M Croymans

Abstract

Policymakers and business leaders often use peer comparison information-showing people how their behavior compares to that of their peers-to motivate a range of behaviors. Despite their widespread use, the potential impact of peer comparison interventions on recipients' well-being is largely unknown. We conducted a 5-mo field experiment involving 199 primary care physicians and 46,631 patients to examine the impact of a peer comparison intervention on physicians' job performance, job satisfaction, and burnout. We varied whether physicians received information about their preventive care performance compared to that of other physicians in the same health system. Our analyses reveal that our implementation of peer comparison did not significantly improve physicians' preventive care performance, but it did significantly decrease job satisfaction and increase burnout, with the effect on job satisfaction persisting for at least 4 mo after the intervention had been discontinued. Quantitative and qualitative evidence on the mechanisms underlying these unanticipated negative effects suggest that the intervention inadvertently signaled a lack of support from leadership. Consistent with this account, providing leaders with training on how to support physicians mitigated the negative effects on well-being. Our research uncovers a critical potential downside of peer comparison interventions, highlights the importance of evaluating the psychological costs of behavioral interventions, and points to how a complementary intervention-leadership support training-can mitigate these costs.

Keywords: field experiment; healthcare; peer comparison; well-being.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Treatment effect estimates on job satisfaction and burnout. The blue and red dots reflect the estimated treatment effects of the respective conditions (vs. Control Condition) on job satisfaction (upper panel) and burnout (lower panel). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Treatment effect estimates of adding leadership support training to the peer comparison intervention. The blue dots reflect the estimated treatment effects on job satisfaction (upper panel) and burnout (lower panel) of the Peer Comparison and Leadership Training Condition (Condition 3) relative to the Peer Comparison Condition (Condition 2). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Treatment effect estimates on perceived leadership support. The blue and red dots show the estimated treatment effects in the respective conditions (relative to the Control Condition) on perceived leadership support. The error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Treatment effect estimates of leadership training on perceived leadership support. The blue dots show the estimated treatment effects of the Peer Comparison and Leadership Training Condition (Condition 3) relative to the Peer Comparison Condition (Condition 2). Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Study timeline. This timeline depicts the timing of the relevant events in the study. The L-shaped lines depict events that occurred over sustained periods of time. The performance feedback emails were initially sent at the beginning of each month, and up to two reminders were sent during the month to those who had not opened the initial emails; PCPs had approximately 2 wk to complete the quarterly surveys. The straight vertical lines depict discrete events. For ease of visualization, the email and survey dates are approximate. See SI Appendix, Section 4 for the precise dates of each email sent and survey launched.

References

    1. Tran A., Zeckhauser R., Rank as an inherent incentive: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Public Econ. 96, 645–650 (2012).
    1. Allcott H., Rogers T., The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3003–3037 (2014).
    1. Gerber A. S., Rogers T., Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. J. Polit. 71, 178–191 (2009).
    1. Frey B. S., Meier S., Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: Testing conditional cooperation in a field experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 94, 1717–1722 (2004).
    1. Blader S., Gartenberg C., Prat A., The contingent effect of management practices. Rev. Econ. Stud. 87, 721–749 (2020).
    1. Meeker D., et al. , Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices. JAMA 315, 562–570 (2016).
    1. Song H., Tucker A. L., Murrell K. L., Vinsonc D. R., Closing the productivity gap: Improving worker productivity through public relative performance feedback and validation of best practices. Manage. Sci. 64, 2628–2649 (2018).
    1. Navathe A. S., et al. , Assessing the effectiveness of peer comparisons as a way to improve health care quality. Health Aff. (Millwood) 39, 852–861 (2020).
    1. Allcott H., Kessler J. B., The welfare effects of nudges: A case study of energy use social comparisons. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 11, 236–276 (2019).
    1. Brown D. J., Ferris D. L., Heller D., Keeping L. M., Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 102, 59–75 (2007).
    1. Rogers T., Feller A., Discouraged by peer excellence: Exposure to exemplary peer performance causes quitting. Psychol. Sci. 27, 365–374 (2016).
    1. Lockwood P., Kunda Z., Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 91–103 (1997).
    1. Butera L., Metcalfe R., Morrison W., Taubinsky D., Measuring the welfare effects of shame and pride. Am. Econ. Rev. 112, 122–168 (2022).
    1. Hermes H., Huschens M., Rothlauf F., Schunk D., Motivating low-achievers—Relative performance feedback in primary schools. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 187, 45–59 (2021).
    1. Krijnen J. M. T., Tannenbaum D., Fox C. R., Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction. Behav. Sci. Policy 3, i–18 (2017).
    1. Gallus J., Reiff J., Kamenica E., Fiske A. P., . Relational incentives theory. Psychological Review 129, 586–602 (2022).
    1. Bobbio A., Bellan M., Manganelli A. M., Empowering leadership, perceived organizational support, trust, and job burnout for nurses: A study in an Italian general hospital. Health Care Manage. Rev. 37, 77–87 (2012).
    1. Maslach C., Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P., Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 397–422 (2001).
    1. Shanafelt T. D., et al. , Impact of organizational leadership on physician burnout and satisfaction. Mayo Clin. Proc. 90, 432–440 (2015).
    1. West C. P., Dyrbye L. N., Shanafelt T. D., Physician burnout: Contributors, consequences and solutions. J. Intern. Med. 283, 516–529 (2018).
    1. McKethan A., Jha A. K., Designing smarter pay-for-performance programs. JAMA 312, 2617–2618 (2014).
    1. Mayer T., Venkatesh A., Berwick D. M., Criterion-based measurements of patient experience in health care. JAMA 326, 2471–2472 (2021).
    1. Hassol A., West N., Gerteis J., Michaels M., “Evaluation of the oncology care model” (Abt Associates, Rockville, MD, 2021).
    1. Care Compare, Doctors and Clinicians Initiative. (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2021).
    1. Kane L., “Medscape national physician burnout & suicide report” (Medscape, 2021).
    1. George J. M., Jones G. R., The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 318–325 (1996).
    1. Judge T. A., Thoresen C. J., Bono J. E., Patton G. K., The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127, 376–407 (2001).
    1. Staw B. M., Sutton R. I., Pelled L. H., Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organ. Sci. 5, 51–71 (1994).
    1. Wright T. A., Bonett D. G., The contribution of burnout to work performance. J. Organ. Behav. 18, 491–499 (1997).
    1. Han S., et al. , Estimating the attributable cost of physician burnout in the United States. Ann. Intern. Med. 170, 784–790 (2019).
    1. Yates S. W., Physician stress and burnout. Am. J. Med. 133, 160–164 (2020).
    1. Ashraf N., Bandiera O., Lee S. S., Awards unbundled: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 100, 44–63 (2014).
    1. Bandiera O., Barankay I., Rasul I., Team incentives: Evidence from a firm level experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 11, 1079–1114 (2013).
    1. Bogard J. E., Delmas M. A., Goldstein N. J., Vezich I. S., Target, distance, and valence: Unpacking the effects of normative feedback. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 161, 61–73 (2020).
    1. Richer S. F., Vallerand R. J., Construction and validation of the ESAS (The relatedness feelings scale). Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 48, 129–138 (1998).
    1. Hennig-Schmidt H., Sadrieh A., Rockenbach B., In search of workers’ real effort reciprocity-a field and a laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 8, 817–837 (2010).
    1. Barankay I., “Rank incentives: Evidence from a randomized workplace experiment” (Business Economics and Public Policy Papers, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2012).
    1. Buntinx F., et al. , Does feedback improve the quality of cervical smears? A randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 43, 194–198 (1993).
    1. Bursztyn L., Jensen R., How does peer pressure affect educational investments? Q. J. Econ. 130, 1329–1367 (2015).
    1. Azmat G., Iriberri N., The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. J. Public Econ. 94, 435–452 (2010).
    1. Vidal J. B. I., Nossol M., Tournaments without prizes: Evidence from personnel records. Manage. Sci. 57, 1721–1736 (2011).
    1. Verbeke W., Bagozzi R. P., Belschak F. D., The role of status and leadership style in sales contests: A natural field experiment. J. Bus. Res. 69, 4112–4120 (2016).
    1. Ranganathan A., Benson A., A numbers game: Quantification of work, auto-gamification, and worker productivity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85, 573–609 (2020).
    1. Sparkman G., Walton G. M., Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1663–1674 (2017).
    1. Fox C. R., et al. , Details matter: Predicting when nudging clinicians will succeed or fail. BMJ 370, m3256 (2020).
    1. Doctor J. N., et al. , Opioid prescribing decreases after learning of a patient’s fatal overdose. Science 361, 588–590 (2018).
    1. Dolbier C. L., Webster J. A., McCalister K. T., Mallon M. W., Steinhardt M. A., Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction. Am. J. Health Promot. 19, 194–198 (2005).
    1. Dolan E. D., et al. , Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometric evaluation. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 30, 582–587 (2015).
    1. Dmitrienko A., Tamhane A. C., Gatekeeping procedures with clinical trial applications. Pharm. Stat. 6, 171–180 (2007).
    1. Reiff J. S., et al. ., Data from “When peer comparison information harms physician well-being.” ResearchBox. . Deposited 14 April 2022.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere