Resume-aware faculty matching

Find professors who actually fit you

Upload your resume. Four AI agents analyze your background, rank the faculty who fit, inspect their recent research, and help you draft outreach — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

Free to startNo credit cardCancel anytime
Top matches Balanced preset
Dr. Sarah Chen
Stanford · Interpretability · NLP
91
Dr. Marcus Holloway
MIT · Robotics · RL
84
Dr. Aisha Okonkwo
CMU · Fairness · HCI
82
Nova · Professor Researcher · re-ranking top 20…

Mitesh S. Patel

Verified

University of Pennsylvania · Rehabilitation Medicine

Active 1994–2024

h-index59
Citations11.7k
Papers327162 last 5y
Funding
See your match with Mitesh S. Patel — sign in to PhdFit.Sign in

Research topics

  • Medicine
  • Computer Science
  • Psychology
  • Family medicine
  • Social psychology
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Nursing
  • Virology
  • Psychiatry
  • Advertising
  • Internal medicine
  • Physical therapy
  • Internet privacy
  • Medical emergency
  • Business

Selected publications

  • A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2022 · 191 citations

    • Computer Science
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Medicine

    Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was "waiting for you." Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy.

  • A Mega-Study of Text-Based Nudges Encouraging Patients to Get Vaccinated at an Upcoming Doctor’s Appointment

    SSRN Electronic Journal · 2021 · 66 citations

    • Medicine
    • Psychology
    • Social psychology
  • Effectiveness and Ethics of Incentives for Research Participation

    JAMA Internal Medicine · 2021 · 77 citations

    • Medicine
    • Family medicine
    • Physical therapy

    Importance: Incentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals. Objective: To determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes. Results: There were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions. Conclusions and Relevance: In these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.

  • A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021 · 348 citations

    • Computer Science
    • Medicine
    • Family medicine

    = 47,306) testing 19 nudges delivered to patients via text message and designed to boost adoption of the influenza vaccine. Our findings suggest that text messages sent prior to a primary care visit can boost vaccination rates by an average of 5%. Overall, interventions performed better when they were 1) framed as reminders to get flu shots that were already reserved for the patient and 2) congruent with the sort of communications patients expected to receive from their healthcare provider (i.e., not surprising, casual, or interactive). The best-performing intervention in our study reminded patients twice to get their flu shot at their upcoming doctor's appointment and indicated it was reserved for them. This successful script could be used as a template for campaigns to encourage the adoption of life-saving vaccines, including against COVID-19.

Frequent coauthors

  • Resume-aware match score
  • Save to shortlist
  • AI-drafted outreach

See your match with Mitesh S. Patel

PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

  • Free to start
  • No credit card
  • 30-second signup