Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25071062›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

Cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for parents deciding about MMR vaccination: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Sandy Tubeuf, Richard Edlin, Swati Shourie, Francine M Cheater, Hilary Bekker, Cath Jackson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sandy TubeufLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds UK.
Richard EdlinSchool of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Swati ShourieMonash Injury Research Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Francine M CheaterSchool of Nursing Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hilary BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds UK.
Cath JacksonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York UK.
University of Leeds · GBMonash University · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0107-12048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLevels of measles in England and Wales are at their highest for 18 years, and strategies targeting the different groups of parents who do not vaccinate their children continue to be needed. Decision aids for decisions regarding childhood immunisation appear to be effective in achieving an increase in vaccine uptake but their cost effectiveness is unknown.

aimTo assess the cost effectiveness of a web-based decision aid to increase uptake of the MMR vaccine. DESIGN AND

settingEconomic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial using urban GP practices in the north of England.

methodFifty GP practices in the north of England were randomised to one of three trial arms: decision aid, leaflet, usual practice. A total of 220 first-time parents (child aged 3-12 months) were recruited. Parents self-reported their contacts with the NHS and other previous/expected resource utilisation; associated costs were calculated. Vaccine-uptake data were collected from GP practices. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken and provided the incremental cost per first-vaccine uptake. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data and findings were adjusted for baseline differences in parents' levels of decisional conflict regarding MMR vaccination.

resultsOf the 220 first-time parents recruited to the study, 179 completed the baseline and post-intervention questionnaires. MMR uptake was highest for those receiving the decision aid (42 out of 42, 100%) versus usual practice (61 out of 62, 98%) and leaflet arm (69 out of 75, 92%), and was associated with lower cost (-£9.20 versus usual practice and -£7.17 versus leaflet).

conclusionThe decision aid has a high chance of being cost effective, regardless of the value placed on obtaining additional vaccinations. It also appears to offer an efficient means of decision support for parents.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesEnglandFemaleHumansInfantInformed ConsentInternetMaleMeaslesMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMumpsParentsPrimary Health CareRubellaMeasles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccinecost effectivenessdecision aidsimmunisationMMRvaccination

Identifiers

PMID25071062
PMCPMC4111342
OpenAlexW2078151799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.