Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305651›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report.

Claire Glenton, Benedicte Carlsen, Brita Askeland Winje, Renske Eilers, Manuela Dominique Wennekes, Tammy C Hoffmann, Simon Lewin, VITAL Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. claire.glenton@fhi.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7558-7737
Benedicte CarlsenDepartment of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Brita Askeland WinjeNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Renske EilersCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Manuela Dominique WennekesCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Tammy C HoffmannInstitute of Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-9515
VITAL Consortium

Funding

The Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) 806776
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased interest in communication with the public regarding vaccination. Our recent Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis points to several factors that could influence the implementation and success of healthcare worker communication with older adults about vaccination. However, it is often difficult to assess whether factors identified as potentially important in qualitative studies have been considered in randomized trials because of poor trial reporting. We therefore decided to use our qualitative evidence synthesis findings to encourage better reporting of vaccination communication interventions in trials by developing an elaboration of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for intervention reporting.

methodsWe examined the findings from our Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis on healthcare workers' perceptions of and experiences with communicating about vaccination with adults over the age of 50 years. We identified factors that could influence the implementation and uptake, and thereby the effectiveness, of vaccination communication interventions. We then drafted a list of the information elements we would need from trial reports to assess whether these factors had been considered in the development of the interventions evaluated in these trials. Finally, we compared our list of information elements to the TIDieR checklist items. We were able to align all of our information elements with the TIDieR items. However, for several of the TIDieR items, we developed a more detailed description to ensure that relevant information would be captured sufficiently in trial reports.

resultsWe developed elaborations for the following TIDieR items: "Why" (item 2), "What-materials" (item 3), "Who provided" (item 5), "How" (item 6), "Where" (item 7) and "Tailoring" (item 9).

conclusionsBoth qualitative research and trials of intervention effectiveness are critical to furthering our understanding of what works, where, for whom and through which mechanisms. However, a key ingredient for developing this understanding is adequate reporting of intervention design, content and implementation in randomized trials. We hope that this elaboration of the TIDier checklist will improve reporting of interventions in trials focused on vaccine communication with older adults, and thereby enhance the usability of this research for developing future communication strategies.

Indexed as

ChecklistCOVID-19AgedCommunicationHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsQualitative ResearchVaccinationMethodsQualitative evidence synthesisQualitative researchRandomized controlled trialsStandardsTIDieR checklistTrial reportingVaccination communicationVaccines

Identifiers

PMID35305651
PMCPMC8934130

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.