Effect of Targeted Behavioral Science Messages on COVID-19 Vaccination Registration Among Employees of a Large Health System: A Randomized Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Santos HC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319759 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of Targeted Behavioral Science Messages on COVID-19 Vaccination Registration Among Employees of a Large Health System: A Randomized Trial.
Santos Henri C HC Goren Amir A Chabris Christopher F CF Meyer Michelle N MN
JAMA network open 20210701 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate if nudges delivered by text message prior to an upcoming primary care visit can increase influenza vaccination rates.DesignRandomized, controlled trial.SettingTwo health systems in the Northeastern US between September 2020 and March 2021.Subjects74,811 adults.InterventionsPatients in the 19 intervention arms received 1-2 text messages in the 3 days preceding their appointment that varied in their format, interactivity, and content.MeasuresInfluenza vaccination.AnalysisIntention-to-treat.ResultsParticipants had a mean (SD) age of 50.7 (16.2) years; 55.8% (41,771) were female, 70.6% (52,826) were White, and 19.0% (14,222) were Black. Among the interventions, 5 of 19 (26.3%) had a significantly greater vaccination rate than control. On average, the 19 interventions increased vaccination relative to control by 1.8 percentage points or 6.1% (P = .005). The top performing text message described the vaccine to the patient as "reserved for you" and led to a 3.1 percentage point increase (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.9; P < .001) in vaccination relative to control. Three of the top five performing messages described the vaccine as "reserved for you." None of the interventions performed worse than control.ConclusionsText messages encouraging vaccination and delivered prior to an upcoming appointment significantly increased influenza vaccination rates and could be a scalable approach to increase vaccination more broadly.
| S-EPMC10798571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of the study was to evaluate a 6-month intervention to promote office-employees' walking with pedometers and e-mail messages.MethodsParticipants were recruited by 10 occupational health care units (OHC) from 20 worksites with 2,230 employees. Voluntary and insufficiently physically active employees (N?=?241) were randomized to a pedometer (STEP, N?=?123) and a comparison group (COMP, N?=?118). STEP included one group meeting, log-monitored pedometer-use and six e-mail messages from OHC. COMP participated in data collection. Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) and costs were assessed with questionnaires (0, 2, 6, 12?months), process evaluation and interviews (12?months).ResultsThe intervention reached 29% (N?=?646) of employees in terms of participation willingness. Logistic regression showed that the proportion of walkers tended to increase more in STEP than in COMP at 2?months in "walking for transportation" (Odds ratio 2.12, 95%CI 0.94 to 4.81) and at 6?months in "walking for leisure" (1.86, 95%CI 0.94 to 3.69). Linear model revealed a modest increase in the mean duration of "walking stairs" at 2 and 6?months (Geometric mean ratio 1.26, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.61; 1.27, 0.98 to 1.64). Adoption and implementation succeeded as intended. At 12?months, some traces of the intervention were sustained in 15 worksites, and a slightly higher number of walkers in STEP in comparison with COMP was observed in "walking stairs" (OR 2.24, 95%CI 0.94 to 5.31) and in "walking for leisure" (2.07, 95%CI 0.99 to 4.34). The direct costs of the intervention were 43 Euros per participant.ConclusionsThe findings indicate only modest impact on some indicators of walking. Future studies should invest in reaching the employees, minimizing attrition rate and using objective walking assessment. TRIAL REGISTERATION: ISRCTN79432107.
| S-EPMC3444317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAchieving high COVID-19 vaccination rates among employees is necessary to prevent outbreaks in health care settings. The goal of the study was to produce actionable and timely evidence about factors underlying the intention and decisions to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine by employees.MethodsThe study was conducted from December 2020 - May 2021 with employees from a VA health care system in Southeastern US. The study used a convergent mixed methods design comprising two main activities: a cross-sectional survey conducted prior to COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and semi-structured interviews conducted 4-6 months after vaccine distribution. Data were collected about participant characteristics, vaccination intention prior to distribution, vaccination decision post-distribution, determinants of vaccination intention and decision, activating factors, sources of information and intervention needs. Data from the survey and interviews were analyzed separately and integrated narratively in the discussion.ResultsPrior to vaccine distribution, 77% of employees wanted to be vaccinated. Post vaccine distribution, we identified 5 distinct decision-making groups: 1) vaccine believers who actively sought vaccination and included those sometimes described as "immunization advocates", 2) go along to get along (GATGA) individuals who got vaccinated but did not actively seek it, 3) cautious acceptors who got the COVID-19 vaccine after some delay, 4) fence sitters who remained uncertain about getting vaccinated, and 5) vaccine refusers who actively rejected the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants identifying with Black or multiple races were more likely to express hesitancy in their vaccination intention.ConclusionThe findings of our study highlight distinct decision-making profiles associated with COVID-19 vaccination among employees of a VA health care system, and provide tailored recommendations to reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.
| S-EPMC9276645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveVaccination has engendered a spectrum of public opinions, with social media acting as a crucial platform for health-related discussions. The emergence of artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models (LLMs), offers a novel opportunity to efficiently investigate public discourses. This research assesses the accuracy of ChatGPT, a widely used and freely available service built upon an LLM, for sentiment analysis to discern different stances toward Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.MethodsMessages related to HPV vaccination were collected from social media supporting different message formats: Facebook (long format) and Twitter (short format). A selection of 1,000 human-evaluated messages was input into the LLM, which generated multiple response instances containing its classification results. Accuracy was measured for each message as the level of concurrence between human and machine decisions, ranging between 0 and 1.ResultsAverage accuracy was notably high when 20 response instances were used to determine the machine decision of each message: .882 (SE = .021) and .750 (SE = .029) for anti- and pro-vaccination long-form; .773 (SE = .027) and .723 (SE = .029) for anti- and pro-vaccination short-form, respectively. Using only three or even one instance did not lead to a severe decrease in accuracy. However, for long-form messages, the language model exhibited significantly lower accuracy in categorizing pro-vaccination messages than anti-vaccination ones.ConclusionsChatGPT shows potential in analyzing public opinions on HPV vaccination using social media content. However, understanding the characteristics and limitations of a language model within specific public health contexts remains imperative.
| S-EPMC11039308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We assessed differences in response to a tailored recommendation intervention for HPV vaccine by participants' sociodemographic characteristics in this exploratory sub-analysis of a larger web-based, randomized-controlled trial on tailored messaging among mothers with low intent to vaccinate their 11-14-year-old child against HPV. The intervention consisted of pre-recorded video messages tailored to 1-5 common concerns about HPV vaccine. In these exploratory analyses, we used generalized linear models to assess differences in post-intervention intent across intervention arms, stratified by sociodemographic characteristics among 496 trial participants. We found significantly higher post-intervention intent in the intervention participants versus the control group among mothers: 1) with younger children; 2) with white vs. black children; 3) with Non-Hispanic children; 4) who were younger; 5) with some college or vocational training; with household incomes of ≥$100,000; and 7) with 1-2 children. Our findings of effect modification by certain sociodemographic factors such as age, race/ethnicity, and household income should be considered when designing similar tailored messaging interventions.
| S-EPMC8192722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The behavioral immune system is considered to be a psychological adaptation that decreases the risk of infection. Research suggests that, in the current environment, this system can produce attitudes with negative health consequences, such as increased vaccine hesitancy. In three studies, we investigated whether two facets of the behavioral immune system-germ aversion (i.e., aversion to potential pathogen transmission) and perceived infectability (i.e., perceived susceptibility to disease)-predicted intentions to accept COVID-19 and influenza vaccination during the pandemic. The behavioral immune system mechanisms were measured before the COVID-19 pandemic in one study, and during the pandemic in two. In contrast to previous research, those with higher germ aversion during the pandemic perceived vaccines to be safer and had higher intentions to accept vaccination. Germ aversion before the pandemic was not associated with vaccination intentions. Individuals who perceived themselves as more susceptible to disease were slightly more willing to accept vaccination. We conjecture that high disease threat reverses the relationship between the behavioral immune system response and vaccination. As the associations were weak, individual differences in germ aversion and perceived infectability are of little practical relevance for vaccine uptake.
| S-EPMC8486622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via electronic health record (EHR) patient portal messages and interactive voice response (IVR) calls, offer an innovative approach to improving patient care.ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of portal and IVR outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination.DesignRandomized controlled trial of EHR portal messages and IVR calls promoting influenza vaccination.ParticipantsAdults with no documented influenza vaccination 2 months after the start of influenza season (2014-2015).InterventionUsing a factorial design, we assigned 20,000 patients who were active portal users to one of four study arms: (a) receipt of a portal message promoting influenza vaccines, (b) receipt of IVR call with similar content, (c) both a and b, or (d) neither (usual care). We randomized 10,000 non-portal users to receipt of IVR call or usual care. In all intervention arms, information on pneumococcal vaccination was included if the targeted patient was overdue for pneumococcal vaccine.Main measuresEHR-documented influenza vaccination during the 2014-2015 influenza season, measured April 2015.Key resultsAmong portal users, 14.0% (702) of those receiving both portal messages and calls, 13.4% (669) of message recipients, 12.8% (642) of call recipients, and 11.6% (582) of those with usual care received vaccines. On multivariable analysis of portal users, those receiving portal messages alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.35) or IVR calls alone (OR 1.15 95% CI 1.02-1.30) were more likely than usual care recipients to be vaccinated. Those receiving both messages and calls were also more likely than the usual care group to be vaccinated (ad hoc analysis, using a Bonferroni correction: OR 1.29, 97.5% CI 1.13, 1.48). Among non-portal users, 8.5% of call recipients and 8.6% of usual care recipients received influenza vaccines (p = NS). Pneumococcal vaccination rates showed no significant improvement.ConclusionsOur outreach achieved a small but significant improvement in influenza vaccination rates. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02266277 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277 ).
| S-EPMC5910339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents' (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.
| S-EPMC7990169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough there is a rise in the use of mobile health (mHealth) tools to support chronic disease management, evidence derived from theory-driven design is lacking.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the impact of an mHealth app that incorporated theory-driven trigger messages. These messages took different forms following the Fogg behavior model (FBM) and targeted self-efficacy, knowledge, and self-care. We assess the feasibility of our app in modifying these behaviors in a pilot study involving individuals with diabetes.MethodsThe pilot randomized unblinded study comprised two cohorts recruited as employees from within a health care system. In total, 20 patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited for the study and a within-subjects design was utilized. Each participant interacted with an app called capABILITY. capABILITY and its affiliated trigger (text) messages integrate components from social cognitive theory (SCT), FBM, and persuasive technology into the interactive health communications framework. In this within-subjects design, participants interacted with the capABILITY app and received (or did not receive) text messages in alternative blocks. The capABILITY app alone was the control condition along with trigger messages including spark and facilitator messages. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare adherence with behavioral measures and engagement with the mobile app across conditions. A paired sample t test was utilized on each health outcome to determine changes related to capABILITY intervention, as well as participants' classified usage of capABILITY.ResultsPre- and postintervention results indicated statistical significance on 3 of the 7 health survey measures (general diet: P=.03; exercise: P=.005; and blood glucose: P=.02). When only analyzing the high and midusers (n=14) of capABILITY, we found a statistically significant difference in both self-efficacy (P=.008) and exercise (P=.01). Although the ANOVA did not reveal any statistically significant differences across groups, there is a trend among spark conditions to respond more quickly (ie, shorter log-in lag) following the receipt of the message.ConclusionsOur theory-driven mHealth app appears to be a feasible means of improving self-efficacy and health-related behaviors. Although our sample size is too small to draw conclusions about the differential impact of specific forms of trigger messages, our findings suggest that spark triggers may have the ability to cue engagement in mobile tools. This was demonstrated with the increased use of capABILITY at the beginning and conclusion of the study depending on spark timing. Our results suggest that theory-driven personalization of mobile tools is a viable form of intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04132089; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT004122089.
| S-EPMC7105932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegistration of research studies is designed to lock investigators into a data collection and analysis plan before a study starts and thereby limit their ability to engage in flexible data analysis and selective outcome reporting. Studies of registered clinical trials show that one- to two-thirds are registered after the study has started and that non-adherence to important design and analytic features, such as reporting data pertaining to all primary outcomes, remains high. Less is known about the effects of registration on research transparency and integrity outside of clinical trials. To address this gap in knowledge, the current study examined the effects of registration on the reporting of research findings in a sample of behavioral health trials published in BMC Public Health.MethodsRegistered trials published in the BMC Public Health section "Health Behavior, Health Promotion and Society" between 2011 and 2015 were included in the study. For each trial, we reviewed associated online submissions from 13 different registration sites. For those determined to have been prospectively registered, we used the trial registry, MEDLINE (Pubmed), PsychINFO, Web of Science and e-mails to investigators to identify subsequent publications from the study that reported results pertaining to primary outcomes. The two investigators then independently reviewed the outcome publication(s) and compared the primary outcomes reported in these to the registered primary outcomes.ResultsThe final analytic sample comprised 136 locatable, registered trials with an identifiable start date. Sixty-eight of the 136 were prospectively registered. Among these prospectively registered trials, only 16 published manuscripts reported outcomes and methods that were concordant with their registrations.ConclusionsRetrospective submission of protocols for publication and retrospective registration remain common in public health research, and adherence to prespecified outcomes is rare. In its current form, registration of behavioral and health promotion trials is likely to have minimal effect on preventing selective outcome reporting in publications, and the pervasiveness of vague and incomplete registry entries means that registries will have limited utility in terms of facilitating replication studies.
| S-EPMC8818241 | biostudies-literature