Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27322154›Full record

Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

A randomized trial of maternal influenza immunization decision-making: A test of persuasive messaging models.

Paula M Frew, Jennifer L Kriss, Allison T Chamberlain, Fauzia Malik, Yunmi Chung, Marielysse Cortés, Saad B Omer

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Maternal Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy.Pediatric clinics of North America · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Enhancing uptake of influenza maternal vaccine.Expert review of vaccines · 2019
    Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Paula M Frewa Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Jennifer L Krissd Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health , Department of Epidemiology , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Allison T Chamberlaind Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health , Department of Epidemiology , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Fauzia Malikc Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health , Hubert Department of Global Health , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Yunmi Chunga Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Marielysse Cortésc Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health , Hubert Department of Global Health , Atlanta , GA , USA.
Saad B Omerc Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health , Hubert Department of Global Health , Atlanta , GA , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to examine the effectiveness of persuasive communication interventions on influenza vaccination uptake among black/African American pregnant women in Atlanta, Georgia.

methodsWe recruited black/African American pregnant women ages 18 to 50 y from Atlanta, GA to participate in a prospective, randomized controlled trial of influenza immunization messaging conducted from January to April 2013. Eligible participants were randomized to 3 study arms. We conducted follow-up questionnaires on influenza immunization at 30-days post-partum with all groups. Chi-square and t tests evaluated group differences, and outcome intention-to-treat assessment utilized log-binomial regression models.

resultsOf the 106 enrolled, 95 women completed the study (90% retention), of which 31 were randomly assigned to affective messaging intervention ("Pregnant Pause" video), 30 to cognitive messaging intervention ("Vaccines for a Healthy Pregnancy" video), and 34 to a comparison condition (receipt of the Influenza Vaccine Information Statement). The three groups were balanced on baseline demographic characteristics and reported health behaviors. At baseline, most women (63%, n = 60) reported no receipt of seasonal influenza immunization during the previous 5 y. They expressed a low likelihood (2.1 ± 2.8 on 0-10 scale) of obtaining influenza immunization during their current pregnancy. At 30-days postpartum follow-up, influenza immunization was low among all participants (7-13%) demonstrating no effect after a single exposure to either affective messaging (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.30-4.01) or cognitive messaging interventions (RR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.11-2.88). Women cited various reasons for not obtaining maternal influenza immunizations. These included concern about vaccine harm (47%, n = 40), low perceived influenza infection risk (31%, n = 26), and a history of immunization nonreceipt (24%, n = 20).

conclusionThe findings reflect the limitations associated with a single exposure to varying maternal influenza immunization message approaches on vaccine behavior. For this population, repeated influenza immunization exposures may be warranted with alterations in message format, content, and relevance for coverage improvement.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdolescentAdultBehavior TherapyBlack or African AmericanBlack PeopleFemaleGeorgiaHealth CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansImmunizationInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareInfluenza VaccinesElaboration Likelihood ModelHealth MessagesMaternal ImmunizationPersuasion TheoryPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID27322154
PMCPMC4994759

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.