Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35139082›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2022

Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

Lauri Sääksvuori, Cornelia Betsch, Hanna Nohynek, Heini Salo, Jonas Sivelä, Robert Böhm

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2022. 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 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

NCT03748160 nacompletednot on this map

Herd Immunity Communication and Influenza Vaccine Uptake

TypeinterventionalSponsorFinnish Institute for Health and WelfareRan2018 to 2019Enrolled48,125ConditionsInfluenza, HumanArmsLetter
NCT07161739 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Vaccination Nudges Project: Behavioural Nudges From Pharmacists to Increase Influenza and Travel Vaccination Uptake: A Pragmatic Randomized Control Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of CalgaryRan2025 to 2026Enrolled20,000ConditionsStroke, Influenza Human, Influenza Vaccines, Health Behavior ChangeArmsBehavioural Nudge (Influenza Risk Reduction), Behavioural Nudge (Travel Vaccination Benefit)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Lauri SääksvuoriTampere University, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6960-043X
Cornelia BetschUniversity of Erfurt, Media and Communication Science and Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, Erfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2856-7303
Hanna NohynekFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Infectious Disease Control and Vaccinations, Department of Health Security, Helsinki, Finland.
Heini SaloFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Infectious Disease Control and Vaccinations, Department of Health Security, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-7085-419X
Jonas SiveläFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Infectious Disease Control and Vaccinations, Department of Health Security, Helsinki, Finland.
Robert BöhmUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Psychology, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6806-0374
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Erfurt · DEUniversity of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage.

conclusionsIn this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population.

trial registrationAEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAgedFinlandHumansImmunization ProgramsReminder SystemsVaccinationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35139082
PMCPMC8870595
OpenAlexW4211191162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.