Search

Nudges are interventions that aim to change people's behaviour through changing the environment in which they choose rather than appealing to their reasoning. Nudges have been proposed as of possible use in relation to health-related behaviour. However, nudges have been criticized as ethically dubious because they bypass peoples reasoning and (anyway) are of little help in relation to affecting ill-health that results from social determinants, such as poverty. Reducing the rate of excess winter deaths (EWDs) is a public health priority; however, EWD seems clearly to be socially determined such that nudges arguably have little role. This article defends two claims: (i) nudges could have a place in tackling even the heavily socially determined problem of EWD. We draw on evidence from an empirical study, the Keeping Warm in Later Life Project (KWILLT), to argue that in some cases the risk of cold is within the person's control to some extent such that environmental modifications to influence behaviour such as nudges are possible. (ii) Some uses of behavioural insights in the form of nudges are acceptable, including some in the area of EWD. We suggest a question-based framework by which to judge the ethical acceptability of nudges.

Background: Poor U.K. lung cancer survival rates may, in part, be due to late diagnosis., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a mixed-method community-based social marketing intervention on lung cancer diagnoses., Methods: A public awareness campaign in conjunction with brief intervention training in general practices was piloted in six localities with a high lung cancer incidence. End points were self-reported awareness of lung cancer symptoms; intention to seek healthcare; chest x-ray referral rates in primary care; secular trends in the incidence of lung cancer and stage at diagnosis, compared before and after the intervention., Results: 21% (128/600) (95% CI 18% to 25%) of the targeted population recalled something about the campaign. Compared with a responder in the control area, the odds of a responder in the intervention area saying that they would visit their general practitioner and request a chest x-ray for a cough was 1.97 times (95% CI 1.18 to 3.31, p=0.01). Primary care chest x-ray referral rates increased by 20% in the targeted practices in the year following the intervention compared with a 2% fall in the control practices. The difference was highly significant, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.33, p=0.001). There was a 27% increase in lung cancer diagnoses in the intervention area compared with a fall in the control area. The incidence rate ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.44 p=0.199)., Conclusion: This is encouraging early evidence that an awareness and early recognition initiative may facilitate lung cancer diagnosis.

Background: An evaluation of a smoke-free home initiative launched in Rotherham, northern England, in July 2009., Methods: Two approaches were used: (i) a postal survey of participants 4 months after signing up as a SFH and (ii) a telephone consultation. The survey was sent to 620 households (of 654 who signed up to the scheme); 289 (46.6%) were returned. The telephone consultation involved 20 households before and 20 after signing up to the scheme., Results: Of the households that permitted some smoking at home before the initiative, ~78% became smoke free after signing up (uncertainty due to missing replies). A high number of participants (169, 60.8%) were already informally smoke free. The most common reasons for participation concerned health, environment, and fire safety. Participants were motivated by, amongst other things, information given in a booklet and by the offer of a fire-safety referral. The most immediate benefits noted by participants were improvements in house hygiene. The most important hindrance to success seemed to be a lack of power to enforce the ban at home, particularly on the part of those living in smokers' homes., Conclusion: The Rotherham initiative succeeded in creating smoke-free homes. The results should help those planning similar initiatives. Important points include that: many participants had already instituted some rules regarding smoking at home; whether and how to include households that are already smoke-free; risk of fire and concern with house hygiene are important motivations; those living in smokers' homes may lack power to initiate smoke-free rules.