Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25133822›Full record

Trial reportHealth psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association2015

Financial incentives for increasing uptake of HPV vaccinations: a randomized controlled trial.

Eleni Mantzari, Florian Vogt, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Increasing HPV Vaccination Uptake among Adolescents: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Improving vaccination uptake among adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eleni MantzariCentre for the Study of Incentives in Health.
Florian VogtInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London.
Theresa M MarteauCentre for the Study of Incentives in Health.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086031/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations by 17- to 18-year-old girls in England is below (<35%) target (80%). This trial assesses (a) the impact of financial incentives on uptake and completion of an HPV vaccination program, and (b) whether impacts are moderated by participants' deprivation level. It also assesses the impact of incentives on decision quality to get vaccinated, as measured by attitudes toward the vaccination and knowledge of its consequences.

methodOne thousand 16- to 18-year-old girls were invited to participate in an HPV vaccination program: 500 previously uninvited, and 500 unresponsive to previous invitations. Girls randomly received either a standard invitation letter or a letter including the offer of vouchers worth £ 45 (€ 56; $73) for undergoing 3 vaccinations. Girls attending their first vaccination appointment completed a questionnaire assessing decision quality to be vaccinated. Outcomes were uptake of the first and third vaccinations and decision quality.

resultsThe intervention increased uptake of the first (first-time invitees: 28.4% vs. 19.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.08, 2.47]; previous nonattenders: 23.6% vs. 10.4%, OR = 2.65, 95% CI [1.61, 4.38]) and third (first-time invitees: 22.4% vs. 12%, OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.32, 3.50]; previous nonattenders: 12.4% vs. 3%, OR = 4.28, 95% CI [1.92, 9.55]) vaccinations. Impacts were not moderated by deprivation level. Decision quality was unaffected by the intervention.

conclusionsAlthough the intervention increased completion of HPV vaccinations, uptake remained lower than the national target, which, in addition to cost effectiveness and acceptability issues, necessitates consideration of other ways of achieving it.

Indexed as

MotivationRewardAdolescentCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMass VaccinationOdds RatioPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID25133822
PMCPMC4312136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.