Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29133488›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine2017

Randomized Controlled Trial of Text Message Reminders for Increasing Influenza Vaccination.

Annette K Regan, Lauren Bloomfield, Ian Peters, Paul V Effler

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT04565353 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Testing Multiple Behavioral Science Strategies to Increase Flu-Shot Rates

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2020 to 2021Enrolled74,811ConditionsInfluenza, HumanArmsFlu shot text messages
NCT04590066 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Testing Multiple Behavioral Science Strategies to Increase Flu-Shot Rates at a Large Retail Pharmacy

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2020 to 2020Enrolled734,383ConditionsInfluenza, HumanArmsFlu shot text messages
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Reminders, but not monetary incentives, increase COVID-19 booster uptake.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Annette K ReganSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia Annette.Regan@curtin.edu.au.
Lauren BloomfieldCommunicable Disease Control Directorate, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
Ian PetersDatavation Pty Ltd, Western Australia.
Paul V EfflerCommunicable Disease Control Directorate, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSeasonal influenza vaccine is recommended and funded for groups at higher risk of serious infection, but uptake is suboptimal. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of short message service (SMS) reminders for influenza vaccination.

methodsSix weeks after seasonal influenza vaccinations began, we identified high-risk patients who had a mobile telephone number on record at 10 practices in Western Australia. Thirty-two percent of the selected patients had already been vaccinated in the current year and were ineligible. Of the remaining 12,354 eligible patients at each practice one-half were randomly assigned to receive a vaccination reminder by SMS (intervention) and the rest received no SMS (control). Approximately 3 months after the SMS was sent (the study period), vaccination data were extracted from the patients' electronic medical records. Log-binomial regression models were used to calculate the relative risk (RR) of vaccination between the intervention and control group.

resultsTwelve-percent (769 of 6,177) of the intervention group and 9% (548 of 6,177) of the control group were vaccinated during the study period, a 39% relative increase attributable to the SMS (RR = 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.54). For every 29 SMSs sent, costing $3.48, 1 additional high-risk patient was immunized. The greatest effect was observed for children younger than 5 years, whose parents were more than twice as likely to have their child vaccinated if they received a SMS reminder (RR = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.79-3.29).

conclusionWe found SMS reminders to be a modestly effective, low-cost means to increase seasonal influenza vaccine coverage among high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Text MessagingAdolescentAdultAgedAppointments and SchedulesChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleMiddle AgedParentsRegression AnalysisReminder SystemsInfluenza Vaccineshealth promotionhealth servicesinfluenza vaccinestext messaging

Identifiers

PMID29133488
PMCPMC5683861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.