Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31383723›Full record

Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2020

Randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to prompt front-line staff to take up the seasonal influenza vaccine.

Kelly Ann Schmidtke, Peter G Nightingale, Katharine Reeves, Suzy Gallier, Ivo Vlaev, Samuel I Watson, Richard J Lilford

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

Trial report in BMJ quality & safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. The influence of social norms varies with "others" groups: Evidence from COVID-19 vaccination intentions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The Future of Quality Improvement for Cirrhosis.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

7 authors.

Kelly Ann SchmidtkeDepartment of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5993-0358
Peter G NightingaleQueen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Katharine ReevesQueen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Suzy GallierQueen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Ivo VlaevWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Samuel I WatsonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Richard J LilfordWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands, UK R.J.Lilford@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0634-984X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of reminder letters informed by social normative theory (a type of 'nudge theory') on uptake of seasonal influenza vaccination by front-line hospital staff.

designIndividually randomised controlled trial.

settingA large acute care hospital in England.

participantsFront-line staff employed by the hospital (n=7540) were randomly allocated to one of four reminder types in a factorial design.

interventionsThe standard letter included only general information directing the staff to take up the vaccine. A second letter highlighted a type of social norm based on peer comparisons. A third letter highlighted a type of social norm based on an appeal to authority. A fourth letter included a combination of the social norms.

main outcome measureThe proportion of hospital staff vaccinated on-site.

resultsVaccine coverage was 43% (812/1885) in the standard letter group, 43% (818/1885) in the descriptive norms group, 43% (814/1885) in the injunctive norms group and 43% (812/1885) in the combination group. There were no statistically significant effects of either norm or the interaction. The OR for the descriptive norms factor is 1.01 (0.89-1.15) in the absence of the injunctive norms factor and 1.00 (0.88-1.13) in its presence. The OR for the injunctive norms factor is 1.00 (0.88-1.14) in the absence of the descriptive norms factor and 0.99 (0.87-1.12) in its presence.

conclusionsWe find no evidence that the uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccination is affected by reminders using social norms to motivate uptake.

Indexed as

Reminder SystemsSocial NormsEnglandHumansInfluenza VaccinesMedical Staff, HospitalVaccinationInfluenza Vaccinescommunicationhealth policyinfection controlrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID31383723
PMCPMC7061920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.