Observational studyVaccine2017
A multi-site feasibility study to assess fever and wheezing in children after influenza vaccines using text messaging.
Observational study in Vaccine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02295007 (Pilot Study to Assess Fever and Wheezing Events in Children After US Influenza Vaccines Using Text Messaging), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Pilot Study to Assess Fever and Wheezing Events in Children After US Influenza Vaccines Using Text Messaging (2014-2015 Season)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Observational
- The use of technology to promote vaccination: A social ecological model based framework.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing text messaging for vaccine safety monitoring, particularly for non-medically attended events, would be valuable for pandemic influenza and emergency vaccination program preparedness. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of text messaging to evaluate fever and wheezing post-influenza vaccination in a prospective, observational, multi-site pediatric study.
methodsChildren aged 2-11 years old, with an emphasis on children with asthma, were recruited during the 2014-2015 influenza season from three community-based clinics in New York City, and during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons from a private practice in Fall River, Massachusetts. Parents of enrolled children receiving quadrivalent live attenuated (LAIV4) or inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) replied to text messages assessing respiratory symptoms (day 3 and 7, then weekly through day 42), and temperature on the night of vaccination and the next seven nights (day 0-7). Missing data were collected via diary (day 0-7 only) and phone. Phone confirmation was obtained for both presence and absence of respiratory symptoms. Reporting rates, fever (T≥100.4 °F) frequency, proportion of wheezing and/or chest tightness reports captured via text message versus all sources (text, phone, diary, electronic health record) and parental satisfaction were assessed.
resultsAcross both seasons, 266 children were analyzed; 49.2% with asthma. Parental text message response rates were high (>70%) across sites. Overall, fever frequency was low (day 0-2: 4.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-7.4%]; d3-7: 6.7% [95% CI 4.1-10.8%]). A third (39.2%) of parents reported a respiratory problem in their child, primarily cough. Most (88.2%) of the 52 wheezing and/or chest tightness reports were by text message. Most (88.1%) participants preferred text messaging over paper reporting.
conclusionsText messaging can provide information about pediatric post-vaccination fever and wheezing and was viewed positively by parents. It could be a helpful tool for rapid vaccine safety monitoring during a pandemic or other emergency vaccination program.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02295007.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.