PP130 Nudging In Public Health: Accountability For Practical Wisdom

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Nudging is the application of behavioural sciences aimed at influencing behaviour in a non-prescriptive way. It is a tool of public health decision makers to produce health gain. Just like decisions in the field of Health Technology Assessment (HTA), nudging decisions are inevitably value laden. The current European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) approach to evaluate ethical aspects encompasses mainly utilitarian and principlistic approaches. The aim of this project is to incorporate the virtue ethics approach in public health decision-making processes based on the example of nudging.

METHODS:

The narrative analysis of nudging is based on a systematic literature search conducted from 28 October to 13 November 2015 in the following databases: Medline via Ovid, Embase, and TRIP Database. A total of sixty-two articles were listed as relevant as a result of searches and, in addition, twenty-five more articles were found through hand searching.

RESULTS:

Regardless of the potential issues related to nudging (manipulation or coercion), nudging is considered cost-effective and inevitable because of the malleability of human psychology for example, alcoholic drinks served in smaller glasses nudge people to drink less alcohol.

No policy intervention, nudging or HTA, is value neutral and hence it requires an ethical evaluation. It takes traits of character, virtues, to discern which principle to apply in what circumstances and phronesis, practical wisdom, is the key virtue of a decision maker. Phronesis is not a moral judgement deduced from principles, but it is context specific, bottom-up, action orientated, and framed through dialogues. It focuses on the agent, the decision maker, who, via the use public scrutiny, should be held accountable for phronetic decisions made.

CONCLUSIONS:

Nudging is a cost-effective tool that can improve the populations health in a non-prescriptive way. Transparent reporting open to public scrutiny is necessary for the sake of evaluating whether the decisions made were phronetic for it takes traits of character, virtues, to decide between competing moral principles.