Trial reportBMC public health2018
Evaluation of two health education interventions to improve the varicella vaccination: a randomized controlled trial from a province in the east China.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies to promote vaccination uptake.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Catch-Up Vaccination Interventions Versus Standard or Usual Care Procedures in Increasing Adherence to Recommended Vaccinations Among Different Age Groups: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Before-After Studies.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Digital Health Technology for Improving the Uptake of Vaccination Programs: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons: A qualitative study.Vaccine: X · 2022Article
- Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons.PloS one · 2022Article
- Acceptance of varicella vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- The effect of community comprehensive nursing using scenario-based health education on the infant and young child immunization rates.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic.Journal of health communication · 2020Article
- Reliability and validity of a survey to identify vaccine hesitancy among parents in Changxing county, Zhejiang province.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the effect of two Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)-based health educational interventions on varicella vaccine (VarV) vaccination among pregnant women in a province in the east China.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted among 200 pregnant women with ≥12 gestation weeks to test two interventions, including a messaging video and a messaging booklet. The participants were randomly assigned into the control group, the video group or the booklet group. The VarV coverage at 12 and 24 months old was compared among the children of the three groups and relative risks (RRs) were calculated, by using the coverage of the control group as reference. The timeliness of VarV was also assessed. Furthermore, differences in the effects on the knowledge and attitude of VarV vaccination between the two interventions was evaluated.
resultsThe VarV coverage of their children by 24 months of age was 86.4%, 76.1% and 56.7% for the video group, the booklet group and the control group, respectively. The relative risks (RRs) for the coverage of VarV at 24 months of age were 4.8 (95% CI: 2.06-11.3) for the video group and 2.4 (95% CI: 1.2-5.1) for the booklet group. The means of delays were 57.3 days in the video group, 76.9 days in the booklet group, and 100.6 days in the control group. The proportion of women who intended to vaccinate their children with VarV was higher in the video group than the booklet group (93.9% vs. 82.1%, p < 0.05).
conclusionsOur findings indicated that perinatal health education through booklet or video could improve the coverage and schedule adherence for children's VarV vaccination.
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.