Download PDFPDF

Thoughtless design of the electronic health record drives overuse, but purposeful design can nudge improved patient care
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Pause before you nudge: ethical implications of behavioral economics and choice architecture in the health care setting
    • Jonathan Kantor, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Dermatology University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

    The authors should be commended for highlighting some of the groundbreaking work on behavioral economics and touching on the potential for nudging in the clinical setting.1 Recently, others have advocated for the broad incorporation or nudge units within health systems.2 While the authors focus on physician-oriented nudges, for patient-directed nudges in particular, reflecting on the ethical implications of the nudge, and deciding to what degree patient autonomy is compromised, may be particularly important for physicians embarking on incorporating choice architecture into practice.

    There is an important distinction between engaging in what the original proponents of nudging termed “libertarian paternalism” (e.g., encouraging smoking cessation),3 and self-serving nudging (e.g., encouraging patients to choose a particular procedure or treatment, which may also benefit the physician or health care system).4 Indeed, concerns abound regarding the ethics of nudging the informed consent process, and pharmaceutical companies’ reliance on similar heuristics to improve sales is well established.5,6

    It is also worth highlighting that nudges are often experimental; as such, it is not always clear that they will have the desired effect, further stressing the need for an ethical pause. While these concerns are implicitly acknowledged by the authors, given the potential impact of nudges, and the lack of patient-facing transparency in developing choice architecture—a defini...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.