Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Mar 1;9(3):414-418.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.6303.

Long-term Effect of Machine Learning-Triggered Behavioral Nudges on Serious Illness Conversations and End-of-Life Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Long-term Effect of Machine Learning-Triggered Behavioral Nudges on Serious Illness Conversations and End-of-Life Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Christopher R Manz et al. JAMA Oncol. .

Abstract

Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) between oncology clinicians and patients are associated with improved quality of life and may reduce aggressive end-of-life care. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC.

Objective: To test the impact of behavioral nudges to clinicians to prompt SICs on the SIC rate and end-of-life outcomes among patients at high risk of death within 180 days (high-risk patients) as identified by a machine learning algorithm.

Design, setting, and participants: This prespecified 40-week analysis of a stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial conducted between June 17, 2019, and April 20, 2020 (including 16 weeks of intervention rollout and 24 weeks of follow-up), included 20 506 patients with cancer representing 41 021 encounters at 9 tertiary or community-based medical oncology clinics in a large academic health system. The current analyses were conducted from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.

Intervention: High-risk patients were identified using a validated electronic health record machine learning algorithm to predict 6-month mortality. The intervention consisted of (1) weekly emails to clinicians comparing their SIC rates for all patients against peers' rates, (2) weekly lists of high-risk patients, and (3) opt-out text messages to prompt SICs before encounters with high-risk patients.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was SIC rates for all and high-risk patient encounters; secondary end-of-life outcomes among decedents included inpatient death, hospice enrollment and length of stay, and intensive care unit admission and systemic therapy close to death. Intention-to-treat analyses were adjusted for clinic and wedge fixed effects and clustered at the oncologist level.

Results: The study included 20 506 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [14.0] years) and 41 021 patient encounters: 22 259 (54%) encounters with female patients, 28 907 (70.5%) with non-Hispanic White patients, and 5520 (13.5%) with high-risk patients; 1417 patients (6.9%) died by the end of follow-up. There were no meaningful differences in demographic characteristics in the control and intervention periods. Among high-risk patient encounters, the unadjusted SIC rates were 3.4% (59 of 1754 encounters) in the control period and 13.5% (510 of 3765 encounters) in the intervention period. In adjusted analyses, the intervention was associated with increased SICs for all patients (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.53-2.87]; P < .001) and decreased end-of-life systemic therapy (7.5% [72 of 957 patients] vs 10.4% [24 of 231 patients]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.11-0.57]; P = .001) relative to controls, but there was no effect on hospice enrollment or length of stay, inpatient death, or end-of-life ICU use.

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a machine learning-based behavioral intervention and behavioral nudges to clinicans led to an increase in SICs and reduction in end-of-life systemic therapy but no changes in other end-of-life outcomes among outpatients with cancer. These results suggest that machine learning and behavioral nudges can lead to long-lasting improvements in cancer care delivery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984773.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Long reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer and Bayer outside the submitted work. Dr Bekelman reported receiving personal fees from United Healthcare, grants from UnitedHealth Group, and personal fees from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Reimagine Care outside the submitted work. Dr Patel reported having part ownership of Catalyst Health and receiving personal fees from Humana outside the submitted work. Dr Parikh reported receiving grants from the NIH, Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Palliative Care Research Center, NCCN Foundation, Conquer Cancer Foundation, Humana, Emerson Collective, and Veterans Health Administration; personal fees and equity from GNS Healthcare, Thyme Care, and Onc.AI; personal fees from the Cancer Study Group, Biofourmis, Humana, and Nanology; honoraria from Flatiron and Medscape; having board membership (unpaid) at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care and American Cancer Society; and serving on a leadership consortium (unpaid) at the National Quality Forum outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Randomization Flowchart
SIC indicates serious illness conversation.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Rates of Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) Over the Study Period
High-risk patients were defined as those at high risk of death within 180 days as identified by a machine learning algorithm. The intervention rollout began at the 16-week mark. Filled circles represent the percent of monthly encounters with recorded SIC completion. Whiskers indicate SEs.

References

    1. Jacobsen J, Bernacki R, Paladino J. Shifting to serious illness communication. JAMA. 2022;327(4):321-322. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.23695 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paladino J, Bernacki R, Neville BA, et al. . Evaluating an intervention to improve communication between oncology clinicians and patients with life-limiting cancer: a cluster randomized clinical trial of the Serious Illness Care Program. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(6):801-809. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0292 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, et al. . Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1665-1673. doi:10.1001/jama.300.14.1665 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schubart JR, Levi BH, Bain MM, Farace E, Green MJ. Advance care planning among patients with advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(1):e65-e73. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00044 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lagrotteria A, Swinton M, Simon J, et al. . Clinicians’ perspectives after implementation of the serious illness care program: a qualitative study. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2121517. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21517 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data