利用沟通促进疫苗接种:对8个促进常规疫苗接种的大型项目的评估为COVID-19提供的经验教训

Heather Barry Kappes, Mattie Toma, Rekha Balu, Russ Burnett, Nuole Chen, Rebecca Johnson, Jessica Leight, Saad B. Omer, Elana Safran, Mary Steffel, Kris-Stella Trump, David Yokum, Pompa Debroy
{"title":"利用沟通促进疫苗接种:对8个促进常规疫苗接种的大型项目的评估为COVID-19提供的经验教训","authors":"Heather Barry Kappes, Mattie Toma, Rekha Balu, Russ Burnett, Nuole Chen, Rebecca Johnson, Jessica Leight, Saad B. Omer, Elana Safran, Mary Steffel, Kris-Stella Trump, David Yokum, Pompa Debroy","doi":"10.1177/23794607231192690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has added new urgency to the question of how best to motivate people to get needed vaccines. In this article, we present lessons gleaned from government evaluations of eight large randomized controlled trials of interventions that used direct communications to increase the uptake of routine vaccines. These evaluations, conducted by the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) before the start of the pandemic, had a median sample size of 55,000. Participating organizations deployed a variety of behaviorally informed direct communications and used administrative data to measure whether people who received the communications got vaccinated or took steps toward vaccination. The results of six of the eight evaluations were not statistically significant, and a meta-analysis suggests that changes in vaccination rates ranged from -0.004 to 0.394 percentage points. The remaining two evaluations yielded increases in vaccination rates that were statistically significant, albeit modest: 0.59 and 0.16 percentage points. Agencies looking for cost-effective ways to use communications to boost vaccine uptake in the field—whether for COVID-19 or for other diseases-may want to evaluate program effectiveness early on so messages and methods may be adjusted as needed, and they should expect effects to be smaller than those seen in academic studies.","PeriodicalId":72347,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral science & policy","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using communication to boost vaccination: Lessons for COVID-19 from evaluations of eight large-scale programs to promote routine vaccinations\",\"authors\":\"Heather Barry Kappes, Mattie Toma, Rekha Balu, Russ Burnett, Nuole Chen, Rebecca Johnson, Jessica Leight, Saad B. Omer, Elana Safran, Mary Steffel, Kris-Stella Trump, David Yokum, Pompa Debroy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23794607231192690\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic has added new urgency to the question of how best to motivate people to get needed vaccines. In this article, we present lessons gleaned from government evaluations of eight large randomized controlled trials of interventions that used direct communications to increase the uptake of routine vaccines. These evaluations, conducted by the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) before the start of the pandemic, had a median sample size of 55,000. Participating organizations deployed a variety of behaviorally informed direct communications and used administrative data to measure whether people who received the communications got vaccinated or took steps toward vaccination. The results of six of the eight evaluations were not statistically significant, and a meta-analysis suggests that changes in vaccination rates ranged from -0.004 to 0.394 percentage points. The remaining two evaluations yielded increases in vaccination rates that were statistically significant, albeit modest: 0.59 and 0.16 percentage points. Agencies looking for cost-effective ways to use communications to boost vaccine uptake in the field—whether for COVID-19 or for other diseases-may want to evaluate program effectiveness early on so messages and methods may be adjusted as needed, and they should expect effects to be smaller than those seen in academic studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral science & policy\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral science & policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23794607231192690\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral science & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23794607231192690","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

COVID-19大流行使如何最好地激励人们获得所需疫苗的问题更加紧迫。在这篇文章中,我们介绍了政府对8项大型随机对照试验的评估,这些试验使用直接沟通来增加常规疫苗的吸收率。这些评估是由美国总务管理局评估科学办公室(OES)在大流行开始前进行的,样本中位数为5.5万人。参与组织部署了各种行为知情的直接沟通,并使用行政数据来衡量收到沟通的人是否接种了疫苗或采取了接种疫苗的步骤。8项评估中有6项的结果无统计学意义,一项荟萃分析表明,疫苗接种率的变化范围为-0.004至0.394个百分点。其余两项评估结果显示,疫苗接种率的提高在统计上具有显著意义,尽管幅度不大:分别为0.59和0.16个百分点。寻找具有成本效益的方法来利用通信促进实地疫苗接种的机构——无论是针对COVID-19还是针对其他疾病——可能希望尽早评估规划的有效性,以便根据需要调整信息和方法,并且他们应该预期效果比学术研究中看到的效果要小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using communication to boost vaccination: Lessons for COVID-19 from evaluations of eight large-scale programs to promote routine vaccinations
The COVID-19 pandemic has added new urgency to the question of how best to motivate people to get needed vaccines. In this article, we present lessons gleaned from government evaluations of eight large randomized controlled trials of interventions that used direct communications to increase the uptake of routine vaccines. These evaluations, conducted by the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) before the start of the pandemic, had a median sample size of 55,000. Participating organizations deployed a variety of behaviorally informed direct communications and used administrative data to measure whether people who received the communications got vaccinated or took steps toward vaccination. The results of six of the eight evaluations were not statistically significant, and a meta-analysis suggests that changes in vaccination rates ranged from -0.004 to 0.394 percentage points. The remaining two evaluations yielded increases in vaccination rates that were statistically significant, albeit modest: 0.59 and 0.16 percentage points. Agencies looking for cost-effective ways to use communications to boost vaccine uptake in the field—whether for COVID-19 or for other diseases-may want to evaluate program effectiveness early on so messages and methods may be adjusted as needed, and they should expect effects to be smaller than those seen in academic studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Saving for retirement: A real-world test of whether seeing photos of one’s future self encourages contributions Can a visual values-affirmation intervention improve test scores of students in areas affected by crisis? Encouraging self-blinding in hiring Teamwork doesn’t just happen: Policy recommendations from over half a century of team research Using communication to boost vaccination: Lessons for COVID-19 from evaluations of eight large-scale programs to promote routine vaccinations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1