Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific second-order ’nudging’ or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea that it is acceptable to ‘nudge’ people to opt for the ‘healthy choice’ is gaining currency in health care policy circles. This article investigates whether researchers evaluating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes (AAASP) attempt to influence decision makers in ways that are similar to popular ‘nudging’ techniques. Comparing two papers on the health economics of AAASP both published in the BMJ within the last 3 years, it is shown that the values chosen for the health economics modelling are not representative of the literature and consistently favour the conclusions of the articles. It is argued (1) that this and other features of these articles may be justified within a Libertarian Paternalist framework as ‘nudging’ like ways of influencing decision makers, but also (2) that these ways of influencing decision makers raise significant ethical issues in the context of democratic decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barton, M.B., S. Moore, S. Polk, et al. 2001. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: Clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16(3): 150–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal-Barby, J.S., and H. Burroughs. 2012. Seeking better health care outcomes: The ethics of using the “nudge”. The American Journal of Bioethics 12(2): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L.C., and J.T. Powell. 1999. Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Annals of Surgery 230(3): 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P.M., D.T. Zelt, and B. Sobolev. 2003. The risk of rupture in untreated aneurysms: The impact of size, gender, and expansion rate. Journal of Vascular Surgery 37(2): 280–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1998. Democracy and liberty. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 185–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 2003. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Debates in contemporary political philosophy—An anthology, ed. D. Matravers, and J. Pike, 342–360. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwood, R., J.J. Earnshaw, G. Turton, et al. 2012. Twenty-year review of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in men in the county of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom. Journal of Vascular Surgery 56(1): 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinnner, I., E.J. Johnson, D.G. Goldstein, et al. 2010. Partitioning default effects: Why people choose not to choose. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 17(4): 332–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers, L., K. Overvad, J. Sorensen, et al. 2009. Analysis of cost effectiveness of screening Danish men aged 65 for abdominal aortic aneurysm. British Medical Journal 338: b2243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J.D. 1998. Deliberation as discussion. In Deliberative democracy, ed. J. Elster, 44–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to self—The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grondal, N., R. Sogaard, E.W. Henneberg, et al. 2010. The Viborg vascular (VIVA) screening trial of 65–74 year old men in the central region of Denmark: Study protocol. Trials 11: 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1976. Legitimation crisis. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, A., J. Brodersen, S. Reventlow, et al. 2012. Opening Pandora’s box: The experiences of having an asymptomatic aortic aneurysm under surveillance. Health, Risk & Society 14(4): 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson, M., and F. Lundgren. 2005. Decision-analytical model with lifetime estimation of costs and health outcomes for one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-year-old men. British Journal of Surgery 92(8): 976–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., and T. Ploug. 2013. “Nudging” and informed consent revisited: Why “nudging” fails in the clinical context. American Journal of Bioethics 13(6): 29–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafata, J.E., J. Simpkins, L. Lamerato, et al. 2004. The economic impact of false-positive cancer screens. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 13(12): 2126–2132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederle, F.A. 2009. The natural history of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Acta Chirurgica Belgica 109(1): 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederle, F.A., G.R. Johnson, S.E. Wilson, et al. 2002. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA 287(22): 2968–2972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholt, J.S., and J. Sorensen. 2010. Hospital costs for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Ugeskrift for Laeger 172(33): 2206–2212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindholt, J.S., S. Juul, H. Fasting, et al. 2005. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: Single centre randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 330(7494): 750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholt, J.S., J. Sorensen, R. Sogaard, et al. 2010. Long-term benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms from a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Surgery 97(6): 826–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15(3): 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J.B., and A.J. Moore. 2011. Lifetime individual retirement arrangements: An application of Thaler and Sunstein’s NUDGE. Journal of Accounting and Finance 11(2): 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montreuil, B., and J. Brophy. 2008. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men: A Canadian perspective using Monte Carlo-based estimates. Canadian Journal of Surgery 51(1): 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. 1969. Coercion. In Philosophy, science, and method: Essays in honor of Ernest Nagel, ed. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes, and M. White, 440–472. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen LV. 2012. Forskernes retssikkerhed er tvivlsom. Weekendavisen 22. juni 2012.

  • Ploug, T., S. Holm, and J. Brodersen. 2012. To nudge or not to nudge—Cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 66(12): 1193–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D.A., P. Rozin, and D. Kahneman. 1993. Understanding patients’ decisions: Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 270(1): 72–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rughani, G., L. Robertson, and M. Clarke. 2012. Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database Systematic Review 9: CD009536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saghai, Y. 2013. Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics 00: 1–7. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M.D., S.R. Pitts, E.L. Chaikof, et al. 2005. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): Cost-effectiveness of screening, surveillance of intermediate-sized AAA, and management of symptomatic AAA. Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) 18(4): 345–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Søgaard, R., J. Laustsen, and J.S. Lindholt. 2012. Cost effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and rescreening in men in a modern context: Evaluation of a hypothetical cohort using a decision analytical model. British Medical Journal 345: e4276.

  • Sunstein, C.R., and R.H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review 70(4): 1159–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensjo, S., M. Bjorck, M. Gurtelschmid, et al. 2011. Low prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm among 65-year-old Swedish men indicates a change in the epidemiology of the disease. Circulation 124(10): 1118–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeting, M.J., S.G. Thompson, L.C. Brown, and J.T. Powell. 2012. Meta-analysis of individual patient data to examine factors affecting growth and rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. British Journal of Surgery 99: 655–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takagi, H., H. Yamamoto, K. Iwata, et al. 2012. Effects of statin therapy on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of observational comparative studies. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 44(3): 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge—Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S.G., H.A. Ashton, L. Gao, et al. 2009. Screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm: 10 Year mortality and cost effectiveness results from the randomised Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study. British Medical Journal 338: b2307. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2307.:b2307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S.G., H.A. Ashton, L. Gao, Buxton, M. J., Scott, R. A. P., et al. 2004. Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. British Journal of Surgery 99:1649–1656.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Psychology, Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Aalborg University Copenhagen, A. C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450, Copenhagen SV, Denmark

    Thomas Ploug

  2. Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Søren Holm

  3. Center for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Søren Holm

  4. Centre for Applied Ethics, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Søren Holm

  5. The Research Unit and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, P. O. Box 2099, 1014, Copenhagen, Denmark

    John Brodersen

Authors
  1. Thomas Ploug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Søren Holm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Brodersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ploug.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ploug, T., Holm, S. & Brodersen, J. Scientific second-order ’nudging’ or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes. Med Health Care and Philos 17, 641–650 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9566-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9566-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation