流感疫苗接种的信息推动:来自芬兰大规模集群随机对照试验的证据。

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2022-02-09 eCollection Date: 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003919
Lauri Sääksvuori, Cornelia Betsch, Hanna Nohynek, Heini Salo, Jonas Sivelä, Robert Böhm
{"title":"流感疫苗接种的信息推动:来自芬兰大规模集群随机对照试验的证据。","authors":"Lauri Sääksvuori,&nbsp;Cornelia Betsch,&nbsp;Hanna Nohynek,&nbsp;Heini Salo,&nbsp;Jonas Sivelä,&nbsp;Robert Böhm","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1003919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.</p>","PeriodicalId":20368,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870595/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.\",\"authors\":\"Lauri Sääksvuori,&nbsp;Cornelia Betsch,&nbsp;Hanna Nohynek,&nbsp;Heini Salo,&nbsp;Jonas Sivelä,&nbsp;Robert Böhm\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1003919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8870595/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003919\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003919","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:疫苗接种是预防传染病传播的最有效手段。尽管疫苗接种的益处已得到证实,但对疫苗的犹豫使许多人不愿接种疫苗。方法和研究结果:我们在芬兰进行了一项大规模的集群随机对照试验,以测试集中书面提醒(通过邮件分发)对流感疫苗接种覆盖率的有效性。该研究纳入了2个文化和地理上不同的地区的所有老年人(65岁及以上),这些地区的流感疫苗接种率历史低(31.8%,n = 7398,平均年龄75.5岁)和高(57.7%,n = 40727,平均年龄74.0岁)。将研究人群随机分为3种治疗方法:(i)不提醒(仅在疫苗接种覆盖率低的地区);(ii)个人利益提醒,告知接受者接种疫苗的个人利益;(iii)个人和社会效益提醒,以群体免疫的形式告知接受者接种疫苗的额外社会效益。由于前几年已发出一般提醒,该地区没有疫苗接种覆盖率高的对照治疗组。主要终点是在5个月的随访期间(2018年10月18日至2019年3月18日),芬兰国家疫苗接种登记册中的流感疫苗接种记录。在历史上覆盖率较低的地区,干预后的疫苗接种覆盖率在个人福利治疗组为41.8%,在个人和社会福利治疗组为38.9%,在对照治疗组为34.0%。在具有历史高覆盖率的区域,干预后的疫苗接种覆盖率在个人福利治疗中为59.0%,在个人和社会福利治疗中为59.2%。与对照组(无提示)相比,收到任何类型的提醒信的效果为6.4个百分点(95% CI: 3.6 ~ 9.1, p < 0.001)。提醒的效果在之前没有接种过流感疫苗的个体中特别大(8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5至11.1,p < 0.001)。在研究前9年未接种任何类型疫苗的最一贯未接种疫苗的个体中存在实质性的积极影响(5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8至7.8,p < 0.001)。个人利益提醒与个人和社会利益提醒之间的流感疫苗接种覆盖率没有差异(疫苗接种覆盖率低的地区:2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4至6.1,p = 0.087,疫苗接种覆盖率高的地区:0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0至1.3,p = 0.724)。研究的局限性包括由于信息溢出而导致的治疗之间的潜在污染以及在疫苗接种覆盖率高的地区缺乏对照治疗组。结论:在本研究中,我们发现发送提醒是一种有效且可扩展的干预策略,可以提高疫苗接种覆盖率低的老年人的疫苗接种覆盖率。除了个人利益之外,宣传疫苗接种的社会利益并没有提高疫苗接种的覆盖率。关于疫苗接种益处的信件提醒对提高流感疫苗接种覆盖率的有效性可能取决于人群先前的疫苗接种史。试验注册:AEARCT注册中心aearr -0003520和ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

Background: Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated.

Methods and findings: We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage.

Conclusions: In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population.

Trial registration: AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

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
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
21.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine aims to be a leading platform for research and analysis on the global health challenges faced by humanity. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedicine, the environment, society, and politics, that affect the well-being of individuals worldwide. It particularly highlights studies that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or our understanding of disease mechanisms, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes in diverse settings. Unwavering in its commitment to ethical standards, PLOS Medicine ensures integrity in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and transparently disclosing any conflicts of interest during the reporting, peer review, and publication processes. The journal promotes transparency by providing visibility into the review and publication procedures. It also encourages data sharing and the reuse of published work. Author rights are upheld, allowing them to retain copyright. Furthermore, PLOS Medicine strongly supports Open Access publishing, making research articles freely available to all without restrictions, facilitating widespread dissemination of knowledge. The journal does not endorse drug or medical device advertising and refrains from exclusive sales of reprints to avoid conflicts of interest.
期刊最新文献
Associations between food insecurity in high-income countries and pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis Association between surgeon training grade and the risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement: An analysis of National Joint Registry data Effects of a self-guided digital mental health self-help intervention for Syrian refugees in Egypt: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Suicide after leaving the UK Armed Forces 1996–2018: A cohort study Association of birthweight centiles and early childhood development of singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation in Scotland: A population-based cohort study.
×
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