Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29125783›Full record

Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017

Effectiveness of a smartphone app to increase parents' knowledge and empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision: A randomized controlled trial.

Marta Fadda, Elisa Galimberti, Maddalena Fiordelli, Luisa Romanò, Alessandro Zanetti, Peter J Schulz

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

Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. [Digital innovations in vaccination communication].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Marta Faddaa Institute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Science , University of Lugano , Lugano , Switzerland.
Elisa Galimbertia Institute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Science , University of Lugano , Lugano , Switzerland.
Maddalena Fiordellia Institute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Science , University of Lugano , Lugano , Switzerland.
Luisa Romanòb Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health , University of Milan , Milan , Italy.
Alessandro Zanettib Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health , University of Milan , Milan , Italy.
Peter J Schulza Institute of Communication and Health, Faculty of Communication Science , University of Lugano , Lugano , Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers are trying to build evidence for mhealth effectiveness in various fields. However, no evidence yet is showing the effectiveness of mhealth on parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to recommended vaccination of their children. The aim of this study was to look into the effects of 2 smartphone-based interventions targeting MMR vaccination knowledge and psychological empowerment respectively. The interventions used gamification features and videos in combination with text messages. We conducted a 2x2 between-subject factorial randomized controlled trial (absence/presence of knowledge intervention X absence/presence of empowerment intervention) with parents of young children in Italy. We randomly allocated 201 eligible participants to one of the 4 conditions. Data were collected by questionnaires at baseline and posttest. Primary outcomes were MMR vaccination knowledge, psychological empowerment, risk perception, and preferred decisional role; secondary outcomes included MMR vaccination intention, attitude, confidence, and recommendation intention. A significant gain in vaccination knowledge was reported by all experimental groups compared with the control (F(3,179) = 48.58, p < .000), while only those receiving both interventions reported a significant increase in their psychological empowerment (t(179) = -2.79, p = .006). Participants receiving the intervention targeting knowledge reported significantly higher intention to vaccinate (t(179) = 2.111; p = .03) and higher confidence in the decision (t(179) = 2.76; p = .006) compared with the control group. Parent-centered, gamified mobile interventions aimed at providing parents with vaccination-related information can be used to increase their knowledge, their intention to vaccinate as well as their confidence in the vaccination decision.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient ParticipationAdultChildDecision MakingFemaleHumansItalyMaleMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsParentsSmartphoneSurveys and QuestionnairesVaccinationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineempowermentinterventionknowledgemHealthMMR vaccinationsmartphone app

Identifiers

PMID29125783
PMCPMC5703372

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.