When peer comparison information harms physician well-being.

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.

Effect of Patient Portal Messaging Before Mailing Fecal Immunochemical Test Kit on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality; however, screening rates remain well below the national benchmark of 80%. Objective: To determine whether an electronic primer message delivered through the patient portal increases the completion rate of CRC screening in a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical quality improvement trial at the University of California, Los Angeles Health of 2339 patients enrolled in a FIT mailing program from August 28, 2019, to September 20, 2020, patients were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group, and the screening completion rate was measured at 6 months. Participants were average-risk managed care patients aged 50 to 75 years, with a valid mailing address, no mailed CRC outreach in the previous 6 months, and an active electronic health record (EHR) patient portal who were due for CRC screening. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either (1) the standard FIT mailed outreach (control group) or (2) the standard FIT mailed outreach plus an automated primer to notify patients of the upcoming mailed FIT sent through the electronic patient portal (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the screening completion rate (ie, returning the FIT). Secondary outcomes were (1) were the time to CRC screening from the FIT mailing date, (2) screening modality completed, and (3) the effect of opening the electronic primer on screening completion rate. Results: The study included 2339 patients (1346 women [57.5%]; mean [SD] age, 58.9 [7.5] years). The screening completion rate was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (37.6% [445 of 1182] vs 32.1% [371 of 1157]; P = .005). The time to screening was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42; P = .003). The proportion of each screening test modality completed was similar in both groups. In a subanalysis of the 900 of 1182 patients (76.1%) in the intervention group who opened the patient portal primer message, there was a 7.3-percentage point (95% CI, 2.3-12.4 percentage points) increase in CRC screening (local mean treatment effect; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of an electronic patient portal primer message in a mailed FIT outreach program led to a significant increase in CRC screening and improvement in the time to screening completion. The findings provide an evidence base for additional refinements to mailed FIT outreach quality improvement programs in large health systems. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05115916.

Prenatal Buprenorphine/Naloxone or Methadone Use on Neonatal Outcomes in Michigan.

Background Maternal opioid exposure during pregnancy has various effects on neonatal health. Buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone are examples of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) used for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Research comparing the impacts of these MOUD modalities on neonatal outcomes when used to treat pregnant people with OUD remains limited. We evaluated the differences in outcomes between neonates with in-utero exposure to buprenorphine/naloxone versus methadone. Methodology We performed a retrospective cohort chart review between October 15, 2008, and October 15, 2019, evaluating mother/neonate dyads at two medical centers in Michigan. The charts of female patients, aged 18+, with OUD and buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone treatment, were examined. The charts of the corresponding neonates were also examined. Multiple regression analysis was performed. Results In total, 343 mother/infant dyads were included: 99 patients were treated with buprenorphine/naloxone and 232 patients were treated with methadone. The buprenorphine/naloxone group had significant differences in maternal age, hepatitis status, asthma, gestational age in weeks, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) length of stay (LOS), neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) peak score, birth head circumference, and birth weight compared to the methadone group at baseline. Adjusted multivariable regression analysis demonstrated neonates with exposure to buprenorphine/naloxone had a NOWS peak score 3.079 points less (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.525, 1.633; p = 0.001) and NICU LOS 8.955 days less (95% CI: -14.399, -3.511; p = 0.001) than neonates exposed to methadone. Conclusions Neonates with in-utero exposure to buprenorphine/naloxone had significantly lower NOWS scores and shorter NICU LOS compared to neonates with in-utero exposure to methadone. These findings demonstrate that buprenorphine/naloxone is potentially a more favorable treatment for the reduction in metrics representing adverse neonatal outcomes in pregnant people with OUD than methadone.