Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35868342›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2022

Effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention compared with user-paid vaccination to improve influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement among children and older adults in China: a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial.

Dan Wu, Chenqi Jin, Khaoula Bessame, Fanny Fong-Yi Tang, Jason J Ong, Zaisheng Wang, Yewei Xie, Mark Jit, Heidi J Larson, Tracey Chantler and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Dan WuWest China School of Public Health, West China Fourth Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Chapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: dan.wu@lshtm.ac.uk.
Chenqi JinChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; Shanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Khaoula BessameDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Fanny Fong-Yi TangDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Jason J OngDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Faculty of Medicine, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Zaisheng WangChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Yewei XieChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Mark JitFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Heidi J LarsonFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Tracey ChantlerFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Leesa LinFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Wenfeng GongBeijing Representative Office, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Beijing, China.
Fan YangInstitute of Population Research, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Fengshi JingChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; Guangdong Secondary Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Shufang WeiChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China.
Weibin ChengGuangdong Secondary Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Yi ZhouZhuhai Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Zhuhai, China; Faculty of Medicine, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau Special Administrative Region, China.
Nina RenGuangdong Secondary Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Shuhao QiuVaccination Clinic, Yangshan Health Centre, Qingyuan, China.
Jianmin BaoFenghuang Community Health Service Centre, Zengcheng, China.
Liufen WenXinhua Community Health Service Centre, Guangzhou, China.
Qinlu YangCommunity Health Centre, Guangzhou, China.
Junzhang TianGuangdong Secondary Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Weiming TangChapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; Guangdong Secondary Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China; Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: weiming_tang@med.unc.edu.
Joseph D TuckerDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Chapel Hill Project-China, University of North Carolina, Guangzhou, China; Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBGuangdong Provincial People's Hospital · CNUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USDuke Institute for Health Innovation · USMacau University of Science and Technology · MOMelbourne Sexual Health Centre · AUPeking University · CNShanghai Institute of Nutrition and Health · CNSichuan University · CNUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina has low seasonal influenza vaccination rates among priority populations. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a pay-it-forward strategy to increase influenza vaccine uptake in rural, suburban, and urban settings in China.

methodsWe performed a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial to examine the effectiveness of a pay-it-forward intervention (a free influenza vaccine and an opportunity to donate financially to support vaccination of other individuals) to increase influenza vaccine uptake compared with standard-of-care user-paid vaccination among children (aged between 6 months and 8 years) and older people (≥60 years) in China. Recruitment took place in the standard-of-care group until the expected sample size was reached and then in the pay-it-forward group in primary care clinics from a rural site (Yangshan), a suburban site (Zengcheng), and an urban site (Tianhe). Participants were introduced to the influenza vaccine by project staff using a pamphlet about influenza vaccination and were either asked to pay out-of-pocket at the standard market price (US$8·5-23·2; standard-of-care group) or to donate any amount anonymously (pay-it-forward group). Participants had to be eligible to receive an influenza vaccine and to have not received an influenza vaccine in the past year. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake. Secondary outcomes were vaccine confidence and costs (from the health-care provider perspective). Regression methods compared influenza vaccine uptake and vaccine confidence between the two groups. This trial is registered with ChiCTR, ChiCTR2000040048.

findingsFrom Sept 21, 2020, to March 3, 2021, 300 enrolees were recruited from patients visiting three primary care clinics. 55 (37%) of 150 people in the standard-of-care group (40 [53%] of 75 children and 15 [20%] of 75 older adults) and 111 (74%) of 150 in the pay-it-forward group (66 [88%] of 75 children and 45 [60%] of 75 older adults) received an influenza vaccine. People in the pay-it-forward group were more likely to receive an influenza vaccine compared with those in the standard-of-care group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6·7 [95% CI 2·7-16·6] among children and 5·0 [2·3-10·8] among older adults). People in the pay-it-forward group had greater confidence in vaccine safety (aOR 2·2 [95% CI 1·2-3·9]), importance (3·1 [1·6-5·9]), and effectiveness (3·1 [1·7-5·7]). In the pay-it-forward group, 107 (96%) of 111 participants donated money for subsequent vaccinations. The pay-it-forward group had a lower economic cost (calculated as the cost without subtraction of donations) per person vaccinated (US$45·60) than did the standard-of-care group ($64·67).

interpretationThe pay-it-forward intervention seemed to be effective in improving influenza vaccine uptake and community engagement. Our data have implications for prosocial interventions to enhance influenza vaccine uptake in countries where influenza vaccines are available for a fee.

fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK National Institute for Health Research.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAgedChildChinaHumansInfantOdds RatioVaccinationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35868342
PMCPMC9492551
OpenAlexW4286252839

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.