Performance Feedback and Organ Donor Registrations, by House, Lacetera, Macis, and Mazar.

 When you register for a driver's license in the U.S., you fill out a form that has an opportunity to register as an organ donor. Did the clerk who accepts your form ask you if you had checked the box?  Would it help if he/she got feedback on how many organ donor registrations she had facilitated?

Here's an experiment about the equivalent interaction in Canada, where "most of the organ donor registrations in Ontario (pre-Covid-19 pandemic: 85 %) occurred during in-person visits to ServiceOntario centers (Trillium Gift of Life, 2017), which through their customer service representatives (CSRs) provide a wide range of services to residents ranging from issuing driver and vehicle licensing to public health insurance registration and business licensing."

House, Julian, Nicola Lacetera, Mario Macis, and Nina Mazar. "Nudging the Nudger: Performance Feedback and Organ Donor Registrations." Journal of Health Economics (2024): 102914.

"Abstract: In a randomized controlled trial conducted in three waves over 2.5 years and involving nearly 700 customer-service representatives (CSRs) from a Canadian government service agency, we studied how providing CSRs with repeated performance feedback, with or without peer comparison, affected their subsequent organ donor registration rates. The feedback resulted in a 25 % increase in daily signups compared to otherwise equivalent encouragements and reminders. Adding benchmark information about peer performance did not amplify or diminish this effect. We observed increased registration rates for both high and low performers. A post-intervention survey indicates that CSRs in all conditions found the information included in the treatments helpful and motivating, and that signing up organ donors makes their job more meaningful. We also found suggestive evidence that performance feedback with benchmark information was the most motivating and created the least pressure to perform."

##########

Related post:

Monday, July 22, 2024

Don't take "No" for an answer in deceased organ donor registration (a paper forthcoming after ten+ years)

Knights and Knaves reimagined by Jacob Glazer and Ariel Rubinstein

 Knights and Knaves are a venerable class of logical puzzles in which knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie, and the task is to think of a way to interrogate a knight or knave to learn the truth about something.  Here's a paper by Glazer and Rubinstein that looks like it opens a new vista of such problems (but don't trust me, I could be a knave...)

Magical Implementation by Jacob Glazer and Ariel Rubinstein, July 21, 2024

"Abstract: A principal would like to decide which of two parties deserves a prize. Each party privately observes the state of nature that determines which of them deserves the prize. The principal presents each party with a text that truthfully describes the conditions for deserving the prize and asks each of them what the state of nature is. The parties can cheat but the principal knows their cheating procedure. The principal “magically implements” his goal if he can come up with a pair of texts satisfying that in any dispute, he will recognize the cheater by applying the “honest-cheater asymmetry principle”. According to this principle, the truth is with the party satisfying that if his statement is true, then the other party (using the given cheating procedure) could have cheated and made the statement he is making, but not the other way around. Examples are presented to illustrate the concept."

Before getting technical, the paper begins with this delightful example.

"Two invigilators, A and B, have witnessed a student receiving a whispered message from another student during an exam. The invigilators have not seen the questions on the exam but would be able to solve them. It is known that A does not like the student who received the message while B does. The exam includes multiple questions but only one refers to the variable α and reads as follows: “Solve the equation α + 1 = 4.” The student answers the question correctly. Invigilator A claims that the whispered message was: “α = 3.” This is a serious allegation and if correct, the student’s exam will be disqualified. Invigilator B claims that the whispered message was: “Solve the equation α+1 = 4 first.” If he is right, then the student’s answer genuinely reflects his knowledge of the material and there will not be any serious consequences. Who should be believed: A or B?

"Although there is no definitive proof one way or the other, we would choose to believe B. The reasoning would be that if the message was “Solve the equation α + 1 = 4 first”, then A (who dislikes the student) could solve the equation himself and claim that the message was “α = 3”. On the other hand, if the message was “α = 3” it is very unlikely that B (who likes the student and who, as mentioned, has not seen the exam questions) could guess that the equation to be solved is α+1 = 4 rather than any other equation with the same solution. Hence, there is an asymmetry between the two conflicting claims which makes it possible to reasonably conclude that B’s claim is the truthful one."

The End Kidneys Death Act has growing support

I've earlier blogged about the Coalition to Modify NOTA (the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984).

Here is a summary of their proposed legislation

The End Kidney Deaths Act Summary

It begins this way:

"The End Kidney Deaths Act is a ten year pilot program to provide a refundable tax credit of $10,000 each year for five years ($50,000 total) to living kidney donors who donate a kidney to a stranger, which will go to those who have been waiting longest on the kidney waitlist. By the 10th year after the passage of the End Kidney Deaths Act, up to 100,000 Americans who were dying on the waitlist will instead have healthy kidneys, and taxpayers will have saved $10-$37 billion. Deceased donor kidneys last half as long as living donor kidneys, the gold standard of kidney care.

"One author of the National Organ Transplant Act, Representative Al Gore, said 40 years ago in 1984 that if transplant centers conclude efforts to improve voluntary donation are unsuccessful, incentives including tax credits, should be provided to donors."  

Their list of supporters is growing, and includes many transplant professionals as well as many people who have already donated or received kidneys.

Redesigning academia

 Here's an article that presents for discussion possible market design changes in academic earth sciences.  Some of them don't apply immediately to Economics (e.g. we already admit grad students to departments without assigning them to specific advisors and grants), but others refer to much broader practices.

Kemeny, P.C., Phillips, A.A. and Johnson, D.L., 2024. Replaying the tape of academia: Fourteen alternative practices for the physical sciences. Perspectives of Earth and Space Scientists, 5(1), p.e2024CN000240. 

Don't take "No" for an answer in deceased organ donor registration (a paper forthcoming after ten+ years)

 Here's a paper reporting a "field in the lab" experiment with actual organ donor registrations, that took over ten years to get published (after considerable revision and additional data collection).  But it has an important message for how to ask people to agree to donate their organs after they die, should they happen to be among those rare cases in which deceased organs can be donated.  The paper has two messages: one is that it doesn't increase donor registration to ask people to answer 'yes' or 'no', compared to just asking if they want to register at this time.  The second message is that people who have declined to register as a donor in the past may agree if asked again (so, don't take "no" for a final answer).

Here's the pre-publication version that will appear in AEJ:Policy.

Increasing Organ Donor Registration as a Means to Increase Transplantation: An Experiment With Actual Organ Donor Registrations  by Judd B. Kessler and Alvin E. Roth, AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: ECONOMIC POLICY (FORTHCOMING)

Abstract: The U.S. has a severe shortage of organs for transplant. Recently — inspired by research based on hypothetical choices — jurisdictions have tried to increase organ donor registrations by changing how the registration question is asked. We evaluate these changes with a novel “field-in-the-lab” experiment, in which subjects change their real organ donor status, and with new donor registration data collected from U.S. states. A “yes/no” frame is not more effective than an “opt-in” frame, contradicting conclusions based on hypothetical choices, but other question wording can matter and asking individuals to reconsider their donor status increases registrations.

And here's the blog post about and link to the 2014 NBER working paper (which was itself a revision of an earlier version), and some of the press coverage it received at the time:

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Don't take "No" for an answer: a reconsideration of how to do deceased donor registration

Signaling for medical residencies: the first few years

Two papers report on signaling in Otolaryngology and Orthopaedic surgery.

 The Otolaryngology societies have a summary of the current state of affairs that's worth hearing. A number of specialties (including Oto) allow many signals, and these seem to be acting as a soft cap on applications, rather than as a signal of special interest as in specialties that (like Economics) allow only a small number of signals.

Preference Signaling in Otolaryngology—Past, Present, and Future: A Comment From the Society of University Otolaryngologists (SUO), Association of Academic Departments in Otolaryngology (AADO), and the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization (OPDO)  by Steven D. Pletcher MD, Bradley F. Marple MD, David J. Brown MD, The Laryngoscope Early View,  First published: 04 July 2024  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.31613

"The year 2020 was a year of change. The residency application process, already suffering from spiraling application numbers,1 now faced the COVID-19 pandemic with a loss of away rotations and apprehension about virtual interviews. In the face of change, the Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization Council (OPDO) approached the leadership of the Association of Academic Departments in Otolaryngology (AADO) and the Society of University Otolaryngologists (SUO) with a recommendation to implement preference signaling. This system, originally described in the economics PhD marketplace,2 allows students a set number of signals (Otolaryngology used 5 in its inaugural year) to send to programs of particular interest. 

...

"Following the lead of Otolaryngology, Urology, General Surgery, Internal Medicine, and Dermatology implemented preference signaling the following year. Since that time, signaling has grown exponentially and is now utilized in the residency application process of nearly every specialty. 

...

"In the 2024-2025 residency application cycle, the evolution of preference signaling continues. Building on Otolaryngology's experience, in the 2023 application cycle Orthopaedic Surgery implemented a high-signal approach, providing applicants with 30 signals. This transition shows promise for reversing the vexing problem of spiraling application numbers—“Big Signaling” has now been adopted by Otolaryngology and four additional specialties the majority of whom have shown a 25%–30% decrease in applications submitted per student saving students a combined $2.5 million in application fees alone. Obstetrics and Gynecology has piloted a tiered signaling system, providing three gold and 15 silver signals to their students. 

...

"Because the number of signals received by programs is not publicized, students are unable to reliably target programs where their signals are less likely to be diluted by competing signals. Specialties should consider providing voluntary “signal cohort” (i.e., my program received between 75 and 100 signals in the 2024 application cycle) data to help applicants make more informed signal decisions and programs with low signal numbers will likely attract additional candidates. 

...

"One of the key statistics to guide applicants in high signal specialties is the interview offer rate for non-signal applications: this helps define the value of applications beyond the set number of signals."

########

Preference Signaling in the Orthopaedic Surgery Match: Applicant and Residency Program Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outcomes, by Guthrie, Stuart Trent MD, FAOA1,a; Dagher, Tanios BSE2; Essey-Stapleton, Jodi MS, MEd3; Balach, Tessa MD, FAOA2,  JBJS Open Access 9(2):e23.00146, April-June 2024. | DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00146

"In the first year of preference signaling, applicants reported applying to 16% fewer programs than if preference signaling had not been available. These results align with AAMC data, which report applications per program dropping 17.4% (from an average of 639.6 to 774.6), and applications per applicant dropping to 76.9 from 86.07,8. Further changes could occur in future cycles as students become more accustomed to the influence of signaling on their application."

Black markets in everything bagels (in S. Korea)

 South Korea is not a hub of everything bagels, it turns out. In fact they are banned.

The NYT has the story:

Why Everything Bagel Seasoning Was Banned in South Korea. The seasoning is sold by Trader Joe’s, a brand whose popularity has skyrocketed in the region in recent years.By Eve Sampson

"Food containing poppy seeds, “including popular bagel seasoning blends,” is considered contraband in South Korea, according to the U.S. Embassy, making the coveted topping a forbidden treat.

...

"As more travelers have tried to bring the popular seasoning mix into South Korea, local news and social media sites have reported in recent weeks on an increase in confiscations at airports.

"Poppy seeds are not opiates but may be contaminated by the plant’s fluid, which contains opiates, when they are harvested. 

...

"In South Korea, poppy seeds are banned because they are considered a narcotic.

...

"South Korea is among the few countries with laws regulating poppy seeds. The United Arab Emirates bans the seed, and Singapore requires anyone wishing to import poppy seeds to submit a sample for opiate testing.

"In the United States, there has also been mixed messaging about poppy seeds. In 2023, the Department of Defense warned members of the military that eating poppy seeds could result in a positive drug test, despite the military previously feeding service members poppy seed breads in ready-to-eat meals."