Top

Trials

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Effect of persuasive messages on National Health Service Organ Donor Registrations: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial with one million UK road taxpayers

Authors: Anna Sallis, Hugo Harper, Michael Sanders

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

A shortage of organs available for transplantation is causing loss of life. Increasing the number of individuals on the National Health Service (NHS) Organ Donor Register (ODR) is one way to address the shortage of organs. In Great Britain, new drivers registering for their driving licence are invited to join the ODR. A further 17 million drivers renew their road tax online each year, presenting an additional opportunity to prompt drivers to join the ODR. This trial explores the effect of adding persuasive messages to a prompt to join the ODR at the end of road tax payment transactions.

Methods

In this pragmatic, parallel group, quasi-randomised controlled trial, drivers renewing their road tax or registering for a driving licence were alternately allocated, using a JavaScript randomisation code embedded in the GOV.UK website, to view a control prompt inviting sign-ups to the ODR or the same prompt plus one of seven theoretically informed persuasive messages; (i) social norms alone, (ii) social norms plus the NHS ODR logo, (iii) social norms plus an image, (iv) loss frame, (v) gain frame, (vi) reciprocity and (vii) cognitive dissonance. The trial took place over a 4-week period in June 2013. The primary outcome measure was participants completing the online registration form (sign-ups).

Results

Altogether, 1,085,322 website users were included in the study. Further, 1171 more sign-ups were completed under the most effective message (reciprocity) compared to the control prompt alone (reciprocity: n = 4256, control: n = 3085; odds ratio, OR 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.32–1.45, p < 0.001). The loss-framed message was as effective. All messages increased sign-ups compared to the control prompt apart from the social norms message plus image (n = 2879; OR 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.89–0.99, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Short persuasive messages alongside a prompt can persuade more ODR sign-ups for individuals renewing their road tax than a prompt alone. The most effective message remains in place today. Since the trial in 2013, the same message has been implemented across 25 government end-of-transaction websites on GOV.UK, resulting in 529,000 new registrations to the ODR up to 31st October 2017.

Available only for authorised users

NHS Blood and Transplant. Organ Donation and Transplantation Activity Report 2016/17 https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/4657/activity_report_2016_17.pdf Accessed on 31/12/17

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Organ donation for transplantation. NICE Clinical Guideline 135. 2011. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg135/evidence/full-guideline-184994893. Accessed on 02/03/18.

Falomir-Pichastor JM, Berent JA, Pereira A. Social psychological factors of post-mortem organ donation: a theoretical review of determinants and promotion strategies. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;7(2):202–47. doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2011.570516 CrossRef

King AJ, Williams EA, Harrison TR, Morgan SE, Havermahl T. The “tell us now” campaign for organ donation: using message immediacy to increase donor registration rates. J Appl Commun Res. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.670258.

Feeley TH, Moon S. A meta-analytic review of communication campaigns to promote organ donation. Commun Rep. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210903258852.

Siegel J, Alvaro E, Crano W, Lac A, Ting S, Jones S. A quasi-experimental investigation of message appeal variations on organ donor registration rates. Health Psychol. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.170.

Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. p. 151–92.

Allcott H. Social norms and energy conservation. J Public Econ. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003.

Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1086/586910

10.

Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990; https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.

11.

Frey BS, Meier S. Social comparisons and pro-social behaviour: testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. Am Econ Rev. 2004; https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828043052187.

12.

Hallsworth M, List J, Metcalfe RD, Vlaev I. The behaviouralist as tax collector: using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. (No.w 20007) National Bureau of economic research; 2014. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20007.CrossRef

13.

Schultz PW, Nolan JM, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol Sci. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x.

14.

Behavioural Insights Team. Applying behavioural insights to increase charitable giving. London: Cabinet Office; 2013.

15.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263–91.CrossRef

16.

Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.

17.

Rothman AJ, Bartels RD, Wlaschin J, Salovey P. The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: how theory can inform practice. J Commun. 2006;56(SUPPL) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x.

18.

Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.

19.

Reinhart AM, Marshall HM, Feeley TH, Tutzauer F. The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: the mediating role of psychological reactance. Commun Monogr. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701397098.

20.

Lindsey LLM. Anticipated guilt as behavioural motivation: an examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Hum Commun Res. 2005; https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/31.4.453.

21.

Landry DW. Voluntary reciprocal altruism - a novel strategy to encourage deceased organ donation. Kidney Int. 2006;69:957–9.CrossRef

22.

Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J Public Econ. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.11.004.

23.

Nadel MS. Refining an “opt in” approach. Am J Bioeth. 2004; https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160490906664.

24.

Saunders B. Altruism or solidarity? The motives for organ donation and two proposals. Bioethics. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01989.x.

25.

Sharp C, Randhawa G. Organ donation as an ‘altruistic gift’: incentives and reciprocity in deceased organ donation from a UK polish migrant perspective. Ann Transp. 2014; https://doi.org/10.12659/aot.889745.

26.

NHS blood and transplant organ donation and transplantation patient selection and organ allocation. NHSBT Organ Donation and Transplantation Patient Selection and Allocation Policies. 2011. http://odt.nhs.uk/pdf/advisory_group_papers/CTAG/nhsbt_introduction_to_the_selection_and_allocation_policies_february_2011.pdf. Accessed 02/03/18.

27.

Stone J, Fernandez NC. To practice what we preach: the use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to motivate behaviour change. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00088.x.

28.

Freijy T, Kothe EJ. Dissonance-based interventions for health behaviour change: a systematic review. Br J Health Psychol. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12035.

29.

Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation: preliminary results from a randomised controlled trial. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team, Department of Health, NHS Blood and Transplant, Government Digital Service & Driver vehicle Licencing Agency. 2013. http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Applying_Behavioural_Insights_to_Organ_Donation_report.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

30.

O’Carroll R, Haddow L, Foley L, Quigley J. If you needed an organ transplant would you have one? The effect of reciprocity priming and mode of delivery on organ donor registration intentions and behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):577–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12248.CrossRefPubMed

31.

O'Carroll RE, Foster C, McGeechan G, Sandford K, Ferguson E. The “ick” factor, anticipated regret, and willingness to become an organ donor. Health Psychol. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022379.

32.

Shepherd L, O'Carroll RE. Do affective attitudes predict organ donor registration? A prospective study. J Health Psychol. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313488984.

33.

Rodrigues AM, O’Brien N, French DP, Glidewell L, Sniehotta FF. The question-behavior effect: genuine effect or spurious phenomenon? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. Health Psychol. 2015;34:61–78.CrossRef

34.

Lindsey LLM, Yun KA, Hill JB. Anticipated guilt as motivation to help unknown others an examination of empathy as a moderator. Commun Res. 2007; https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207302789.

35.

Parisi N, Katz I. Attitudes toward posthumous organ donation: a critical review and synthesis of individual and next of kin donation decisions. Health Psychol. 1986;16:183–95.

36.

Cohen EL. “My loss is your gain”: Examining the role of message frame, perceived risk and ambivalence in the decision to become an organ donor. Thesis Georgia State University. 2007. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1025&context=communication_theses. Accessed on 02/03/18.

Title: Effect of persuasive messages on National Health Service Organ Donor Registrations: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial with one million UK road taxpayers
Authors: Anna Sallis
Hugo Harper
Michael Sanders
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2855-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Effect of persuasive messages on National Health Service Organ Donor Registrations: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial with one million UK road taxpayers

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BetaMe: impact of a comprehensive digital health programme on HbA1c and weight at 12 months for people with diabetes and pre-diabetes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation of Treating Idiopathic Pulmonary fibrosis with the Addition of Co-trimoxazole (EME-TIPAC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

A phase I, open-label trial on the safety and immunogenicity of the adjuvanted tuberculosis subunit vaccine H1/IC31® in people living in a TB-endemic area

Pressure support ventilation + sigh in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial, the PROTECTION trial

Comparing isolated soy protein with flaxseed oil vs isolated soy protein with corn oil and wheat flour with corn oil consumption on muscle catabolism, liver function, blood lipid, and sugar in burn patients: a randomized clinical trial