Contributions to the literature
-
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of social norms interventions to change the clinical behaviour of healthcare workers, and the results suggest that, on average, these interventions are effective.
-
Social norms interventions may be effective across a range of health service contexts and modes of delivery, but the effects are variable.
-
These findings contribute to a recognised gap in the literature, by highlighting which social norms interventions may be most effective: this can inform the design of future interventions aimed at improving health professional practice.
Background
SN/non-SN BCT | Name and definition from BCT taxonomy (reproduced from the BCT taxonomy [16]) | SOCIAL review name and definition (reproduced from the SOCIAL protocol [17]) |
---|---|---|
Social norm BCT | 6.2. Social comparison Draw attention to others' performance to allow comparison with the person's own performance. Note: being in a group setting does not necessarily mean that social comparison is actually taking place. Show the doctor the proportion of patients who were prescribed antibiotics for a common cold by other doctors and compare with their own data. | Coded as per original definition, unchanged. |
Social norm BCT | 6.3. Information about others’ approval Provide information about what other people think about the behaviour. The information clarifies whether others will like, approve or disapprove of what the person is doing or will do. Tell the staff at the hospital ward that staff at all other wards approve of washing their hands according to the guidelines. | Coded as per original decision, unchanged. |
Social norm BCT | 9.1. Credible source Present verbal or visual communication from a credible source in favour of or against the behaviour. Note: code this BCT if source generally agreed on as credible, e.g. health professionals, celebrities or words used to indicate expertise or leader in field and if the communication has the aim of persuading. Present a speech given by a high-status professional to emphasise the importance of not exposing patients to Unnecessary radiation by ordering X-rays for back pain. | Coded as per original decision, unchanged. |
Social norm BCT | 10.4. Social reward Arrange verbal or non-verbal reward if and only if there has been effort and/or progress in performing the behaviour (includes ‘positive reinforcement’). Congratulate the person for each day they eat a reduced fat diet. | Changed: Arrange praise, commendation, applause or thanks if and only if there has been effort and/or progress in performing the behaviour (includes ‘positive reinforcement’). New example, relevant to healthcare worker context: arrange for a family doctor to be sent a thank you note for each week that they reduce their level of antibiotic prescribing. Reason for change: the definition of social reward as ‘verbal or non-verbal reward’ is insufficient to distinguish a ‘social’ reward from other types of reward. Further, in the present study, we are interested in only those social rewards that rely on social norms. Praise, commendation, applause or thanks are all injunctive norms messages, providing the target with information about the values, beliefs or attitudes of the reference group, conveying social approval or disapproval. |
Social norm BCT | 10.5 Social incentive Inform that a verbal or non-verbal reward will be delivered if and only if there has been effort and/or progress in performing the behaviour (includes ‘positive reinforcement’). Inform that they will be congratulated for each day that they eat a reduced fat diet. | Changed: Inform that praise, commendation, applause or thanks will be delivered if and only if there has been effort and/or progress in performing the behaviour (includes ‘positive reinforcement’). New example, relevant to healthcare worker context: Promise a family doctor in advance that they will be sent a thank you note for each week that they reduce their level of antibiotic prescribing. Reason for change The definition of social reward as ‘verbal or non-verbal reward’ is insufficient to distinguish a ‘social’ reward from other types of reward. Further, in the present study, we are interested in only those social rewards that rely on social norms. Praise, commendation, applause or thanks are all injunctive norms messages, providing the target with information about the values, beliefs or attitudes of the reference group, conveying social approval or disapproval. |
Other BCT (not social norm) | 7.1. Prompts and cues Introduce or define environmental or social stimulus with the purpose of prompting or cueing the behaviour. The prompt or cue would normally occur at the time or place of performance Note: when a stimulus is linked to a specific action in an if-then plan including one or more of frequency, duration or intensity also code 1.4, Action planning. Put a sticker on the bathroom mirror to remind people to brush their teeth | Coded as per original definition, unchanged. |
Other BCT (not social norm) | 3.1. Social support (unspecified) Advise on, arrange or provide social support (e.g. from friends, relatives, colleagues, buddies or staff) or non-contingent praise or reward for performance of the behaviour. It includes encouragement and counselling, but only when it is directed at the behaviour. Note: attending a group class and/or mention of ‘follow-up’ does not necessarily apply this BCT, support must be explicitly mentioned; if practical, code 3.2, Social support (practical); if emotional, code 3.3, Social support (emotional) (includes ‘Motivational interviewing’ and ‘Cognitive Behavioural Therapy’). Advise the person to call a ‘buddy’ when they experience an urge to smoke. Arrange for a housemate to encourage continuation with the behaviour change programme. Give information about a self-help group that offers support for the behaviour. | Coded as per original definition, unchanged. |
Other BCT (not social norm) | 4.1. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour Advise or agree on how to perform the behaviour (includes ‘Skills training’). Note: when the person attends classes such as exercise or cookery, code 4.1, Instruction on how to perform the behaviour, 8.1, Behavioural practice/rehearsal and 6.1, Demonstration of the behaviour. Advise the person how to put a condom on a model of a penis correctly | Coded as per original definition, unchanged. |
Other BCT (not social norm) | 5.1. Information on Health Consequences Provide information (e.g. written, verbal, visual) about health consequences of performing the behaviour. Note: consequences can be for any target, not just the recipient(s) of the intervention; emphasising importance of consequences is not sufficient; if information about emotional consequences, code 5.6, Information about emotional consequences; if about social, environmental or unspecified consequences code 5.3, Information about social and environmental consequences. | Coded as per original definition, unchanged. |
Methods
Protocol and registration
Searches
Study inclusion criteria
PICOS criterion | Description |
---|---|
Population | Healthcare workers, including managers and those in training. |
Intervention | A social norms intervention in a (non-simulated) healthcare setting that seeks to change the clinical behaviour of target population by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours of a reference group or person. |
Comparison/control | No restrictions on the comparators. |
Outcomes | Primary outcome of interest was compliance with the desired clinical behaviour. Secondary outcomes were patient health-related outcomes. |
Study design | Randomised controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals, in English Language. Grey literature was not eligible for inclusion. |
Screening
Data extraction
Study quality assessment
Data analysis/synthesis
Results
Study characteristics
Study characteristic (n = 106) | No. | % | Study characteristic (n = 106) | No. | % | Intervention characteristic (n = 117) | No. | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | Type of trial | Source | ||||||
Australia | 8 | 7.5 | Cluster RCT | 69 | 65.1 | Peer | 6 | 5.1 |
Canada | 15 | 14.2 | Factorial | 4 | 3.8 | Investigators | 83 | 70.9 |
Denmark | 4 | 3.8 | Randomised controlled trial | 28 | 26.4 | Supervisor or senior colleague | 2 | 1.7 |
UK | 13 | 12.3 | Stepped wedge | 4 | 3.8 | Patient | 1 | 0.9 |
Netherlands | 6 | 5.7 | Matched pairs, cluster RCT | 1 | 0.9 | Credible source | 15 | 12.8 |
USA | 45 | 42.5 | Low baseline performance?a | Other | 1 | 0.9 | ||
Other/multiple | 15 | 14.2 | No | 103 | 97.2 | Not reported | 9 | 7.7 |
Setting | Yes | 2 | 1.9 | Internal/external delivery b | ||||
Primary (GP/GP practice nurses) | 57 | 53.8 | Unclear | 1 | 0.9 | Internal | 17 | 14.5 |
Hospital (inpatient and outpatient) | 31 | 29.3 | External | 81 | 69.2 | |||
Community | 4 | 3.8 | Unclear/not reported | 19 | 16.2 | |||
Care/nursing home | 4 | 3.8 | Reference group | |||||
Mixed | 7 | 6.6 | Peer | 97 | 82.9 | |||
Other | 3 | 2.8 | Intervention characteristic (n = 117) | No. | % | Professional body | 1 | 0.9 |
Type of HCP | Format | Senior person | 9 | 7.7 | ||||
Doctor (primary care) | 45 | 42.5 | Face-to-face meeting | 16 | 13.7 | Patient(s) | 1 | 0.9 |
Doctor (secondary) | 19 | 17.9 | Email | 10 | 8.5 | Multiple | 4 | 3.4 |
Other (nurse/dentist/AHP/pharmacist) | 7 | 6.6 | Written (paper) | 29 | 24.8 | Unclear/not reported | 5 | 4.3 |
Mixture/whole team | 35 | 33.0 | Separate computerised | 10 | 8.5 | Direction of change | ||
Target behaviour | Mixed | 18 | 15.4 | Increase | 85 | 72.6 | ||
Prescribing (incl. vaccinations) | 40 | 37.7 | Unclear/not reported | 34 | 29.1 | Decrease | 30 | 25.6 |
Handwashing/hygiene | 4 | 3.8 | Frequency | Maintenance | 0 | 0.0 | ||
Tests/assessments | 21 | 19.8 | Only once | 35 | 29.9 | Unclear | 2 | 1.7 |
Referrals | 3 | 2.8 | Twice | 10 | 8.5 | Comparator | ||
Management communications | 25 | 23.6 | More than twice | 45 | 38.5 | Alternative intervention | 15 | 12.8 |
Other | 2 | 1.9 | Unclear/not reported | 27 | 23.1 | Usual practice | 59 | 50.4 |
Multiple | 11 | 10.4 | Attention or waitlist control | 18 | 15.4 | |||
Concomitant interventionc | 25 | 21.4 |
Effects of interventions
Overall effects on clinical behaviours and patient outcomes
Social norms behaviour change techniques
Type of social norms intervention | Number of comparisons for meta-analysis (network meta-analysis) | SMD meta-analysis (95%CI) n = 100 | SMD network meta-analysis (95%CI) n = 102 | Probability of being the best intervention (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Social comparison + social reward | 2 | 0.39(0.15 to 0.64) | 0.39 (0.15 to 0.64) | 59.2 |
Social comparison + prompts/cues | 5 | 0.33(0.22 to 0.24) | 0.33 (0.22 to 0.44) | 22.2 |
Credible sourcea | 7 | 0.30(0.13 to 0.47) | 0.30 (0.13 to 0.47) | 18.6 |
Social comparison + credible sourcea | 8(10) | 0.16(0.12 to 0.19) | 0.16(0.12 to 0.20) | 0.0 |
Social comparison + social support (unspecified) | 7 | 0.10(0.04 to 0.16) | 0.10 (0.04 to 0.16) | 0.0 |
Other multiple social norms BCTs | 4 | 0.07(0.03 to 0.12) | 0.07(0.03 to 0.12) | 0.0 |
Social comparison | 33(35) | 0.05(0.03 to 0.08) | 0.05(0.03 to 0.08) | 0.0 |
Social comparison + other BCTs | 23 | 0.04(0.00 to 0.08) | 0.04(0.00 to 0.08) | 0.0 |
Social reward | 2 | 0.03(− 0.08 to 0.13) | 0.03(− 0.08 to 0.13) | 0.0 |
Social comparison + instructions on how to perform the behaviour + prompts/cues | 5 | 0.01(− 0.10 to 0.11) | 0.01(− 0.10 to 0.11) | 0.0 |
Social comparison + info on health consequences | 4 | − 0.14(− 0.33 to 0.05) | − 0.14(− 0.33 to 0.05) | 0.0 |
Type of comparison | Test of SC | Test of CS | Test of SR | Test of SC + CS | Test of SC + SR | Test of SC + social support (unspecified) | Test of SC + prompts and cues | Test of SC + info on health consequences | Test of SC + instructions + prompts/cues | Test of SC + others BCTs | Test of CS + other BCTs | Test of SC + CS + other BCTs | Test of SR +other BCTs | Test of multiple SNs + other BCTs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of comparisons with primary outcome data | 33 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 25 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
Target Behaviour | ||||||||||||||
Prescribing | 15(45%) | 1(100%) | 1(50%) | 2(100%) | 2(29%) | 1(20%) | 3(75%) | 1(20%) | 11(44%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | ||
Hand/hygiene | 1(25%) | 1(100%) | 1(25%) | |||||||||||
Tests | 7(21%) | 1(14%) | 3(60%) | 1(25%) | 3(60%) | 4(16%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | ||||||
Referrals | 2(8%) | 1(25%) | ||||||||||||
Man/comm | 5(15%) | 3(100%) | 1(50%) | 2(29%) | 1(20%) | 5(20%) | 2(50%) | 2(50%) | ||||||
Other | 12(14%) | 1(4%) | ||||||||||||
Multiple | 6(18%) | 1(14%) | 1(20%) | 2(8%) | ||||||||||
Type of HCP | ||||||||||||||
Doctor GP | 16(48%) | 1(50%) | 2(100%) | 4(57%) | 2(40%) | 1(25%) | 4(80%) | 11(44%) | 2(50%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | |||
Doctor secondary | 4(12%) | 3(100%) | 1(14%) | 1(20%) | 1(20%) | 2(12%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | |||||
Other HCP | 4(12%) | 1(100%) | 1(4%) | 0(0%) | 1(25%) | |||||||||
Mixed/team | 9(27%) | 1(50%) | 2(29%) | 2(40%) | 2(40%) | 1(20%) | 10(40%) | 2(50%) | 2(50%) | 1(100%) | 1(25%) | |||
Setting | ||||||||||||||
Primary | 18(55%) | 1(50%) | 2(100%) | 4(57%) | 4(80%) | 1(25%) | 5(100%) | 17(68%) | 2(50%) | 1(25%) | 1(25%) | |||
Hospital | 6(18%) | 3(100%) | 2(29%) | 1(20%) | 2(50%) | 6(24%) | 2(50%) | 2(50%) | 1(100%) | 2(50%) | ||||
Community | 1(3%) | 1(100%) | 1(50%) | 1(25%) | ||||||||||
Care/nursing | 0(0%) | 1(14%) | 1(25%) | 1(4) | 1(25%) | |||||||||
Mixed | 7(21%) | |||||||||||||
Other | 1(3%) |
Study Trial design Target healthcare worker | Aims | Outcome measure SMD(95% CI) | Control arm | Intervention description |
---|---|---|---|---|
Credible source + social comparison | ||||
Hallsworth et al. (2016) [32] RCT Doctor (primary care) | To reduce the number of unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by GPS in England | The rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population 0.13 (0.03 to 0.29) | Delayed intervention (after the end of the trial (no BCTs were coded). | A letter was sent to GPs from the Chief Medical Officer. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team, and used three concepts from the behavioural sciences. The first was social norm information about how the recipient’s practices prescribing rate compared with other practices in the local area. Second, the letter was addressed from a high-profile figure with the assumption that this would increase the credibility of its content. Finally, the letter presented three specific, feasible actions that the recipient could do to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics: giving patients advice on self-care, offering a delayed prescription and talking about the issue with other prescribers in his or her practice. The letter was accompanied by a copy of the patient-focused “Treating your infection” leaflet, which acted to reinforce the message of the letter by supporting delayed or reduced prescribing. (9.1 Credible source, 6.2 Social comparison, 2.2 Feedback on behaviour, 4.1 Instruction on how to perform the behaviour). |
Social comparison + prompts/cues | ||||
Vellinga et al (2016) [33] Arm A Cluster RCT Doctor-GP | To increase the number of first-line antimicrobial prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections (UTIs) in adult patients | Adherence to guidelines for antimicrobial prescribing in primary care 0.55 (0.32 to 0.77) | Phase 1—a coding workshop: routine coding for UTIs using standardised codes were demonstrated. The purpose of this was to facilitate the generation of electronic audit and feedback reports (not available to control until after the trial). Control practices then provided 'usual care’ for the remainder of the intervention (no BCTs were coded). | Arm A: phase 1—a coding workshop (same as control). Phase 2—interactive workshops were designed to promote changes in antimicrobial prescribing for the treatment of UTIs by presenting an overview of prescribing and antimicrobial resistance, discussing the role of the GP in the spread of anti-microbial resistance. A computer prompt was developed for use within the selected GP practice management software system. This prompt summarised the recommendations for first-line antimicrobial treatment and appeared on the computer screen when the GP entered the International Classification of Primary Care code (U71) for 'cystitis, urinary infection, other’. This prompt also reminded the GP to collect patients’ mobile telephone numbers. Electronic audit and feedback reports were available to download by GPs. These reports provided the practice with information on antimicrobial prescribing for UTI in comparison with the aggregated information from the other practices participating in the intervention. (7.1 Prompts/cues, 2.2 Feedback on behaviour, 6.2 Social comparison) |
Social comparison + social reward | ||||
Persell et al. (2016) [34] 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Doctor (GP) | To reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) | Physician rate of oral antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis and all other diagnoses of respiratory infection SMD 0.44 (− 0.06 to 0.94) | Intervention 1 (accountable justifications): Clinicians received electronic health record (EHR) alerts summarising the treatment guidelines corresponding to the ARI diagnosis for which the antibiotic was being written, prompted the clinician to enter a free-text justification for prescribing an antibiotic, and informed the clinician that the free-text justification provided would be included in the patient’s medical record where it would be visible to other clinicians. Clinicians were also informed that if no free-text justification was entered, a default statement “No justification for prescribing antibiotics was given” would appear in the record. If the antibiotic order was cancelled, no justification was required, and no default text appeared. Alerts were suppressed for patients with comorbid chronic conditions that exempted these patients from clinical guidelines (4.1 Instruction on how to perform the behaviour, 7.1 Prompts/cues) Intervention 2 (suggested alternatives): when entering an ARI diagnosis for a patient, clinicians received a computerized alert containing multiple non-antibiotic prescription and non-prescription medication choices as well as educational materials that could be printed and given to the patient. (7.1 Prompts/cues) | Intervention 3 (peer comparison): clinicians received emailed monthly performance feedback reports which included the clinician’s individual antibiotic prescribing rates for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs and as a benchmark, the antibiotic prescribing rate for clinicians who were at the 10th percentile within the clinic (i.e. the lowest rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing). If clinicians were among the 10% of their peers with the lowest prescribing rates the emailed reports told clinicians "You are a top performer.” If clinicians were not among the 10% best, the emailed report told clinicians “You are not a top performer. You are prescribing too many unnecessary antibiotics”. The proportion of “top performers” could be greater than 10 % of clinicians if more than 10 % of clinicians had an inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rate of 0. (2.2 Feedback on behaviour, 6.2 Social comparison, 10.4 Social reward) |