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.

IMPORTANCEColorectal 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.

BackgroundMaternal 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. MethodologyWe 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. ResultsIn 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. ConclusionsNeonates 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.