Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37932539›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2024

"How" Versus "Why" Messaging to Increase Uptake of Booster Vaccination Against COVID-19: Results of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

Nancy Haff, Niteesh K Choudhry, Gauri Bhatkhande, Punam A Keller, Ted Robertson, Rebecca Oran, Daniel Horn, Katherine L Crum, Theresa Oduol, Kaitlin Hanken and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04871776 (Use of Construal Level Theory to Inform Messaging to Increase Vaccination Against COVID-19), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT04871776 nacompletednot on this map

Use of Construal Level Theory to Inform Messaging to Increase Vaccination Against COVID-19

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalRan2022 to 2022Enrolled3,671ConditionsCovid19, Vaccine RefusalArmsMessaging informed by construal level theory, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy HaffCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. nhaff@mgb.org.ORCID 0000-0001-8156-7137
Niteesh K ChoudhryCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Gauri BhatkhandeCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Punam A KellerTuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Ted Robertsonideas42, New York, NY, USA.
Rebecca Oranideas42, New York, NY, USA.
Daniel HornHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Katherine L CrumCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Theresa OduolCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Kaitlin HankenCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Julie C LauffenburgerCenter for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USIdeas42 · USDartmouth College · USHarvard University · US

Funding

The Roybal Center for TherapeuticOptimization using BehavioralScienceP30AG064199 · NIA · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Julie Christine Lauffenburger · 2019 to 2026
$8.3M
Development of an implementation-ready antihypertensive self-titration intervention to improve US blood pressure controlK23HL161480 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Nancy Haff · 2022 to 2026
$826k
Development of a novel medication adherability tool to improve cardiovascular disease managementK01HL141538 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI LAUFFENBURGER, JULIE CHRISTINE · 2018 to 2022
$718k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL141538NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL161480NHLBI NIH HHS K23HL161480NIA NIH HHS P30 AG064199NIA NIH HHS P30AG064199
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMessages aimed at increasing uptake of vaccines have been modestly successful, perhaps in part because they often focus on why individuals should receive a vaccine. Construal Level Theory posits that messages emphasizing "how" to get a vaccine may be more effective at encouraging vaccination than emphasizing "why." This message framing may be particularly important for COVID-19 booster acceptance.

objectiveTo determine if pre-visit patient portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory increase rates of COVID-19 booster vaccination. DESIGN AND

interventionsThis 3-arm randomized trial was conducted across three large, diverse primary care clinics in Massachusetts between February and May 2022, testing the impact of "how" versus "why" framed pre-visit messages versus no messages ("usual care"). Messages were sent by patient portal two business days before a visit.

participantsAdults with upcoming primary care visits who had electronic health record evidence of receiving their initial COVID-19 vaccination series but not a booster dose. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of a COVID-19 booster vaccination after the message was sent through the visit date (primary outcome) or 6 weeks (secondary outcome). KEY

resultsA total of 3665 patients were randomized (mean age: 53.5 years (SD: 17.3), 59% female, 65.2% White, 26.6% Hispanic), with 1249 to "how" 1199 to "why," and 1217 to usual care arms. Except for clinic and preferred language, characteristics were well balanced across arms. Rates of COVID-19 booster were 13.6% (usual care), 11.7% ("how") (odds ratio (OR) "how" vs usual care: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.67-1.14), and 13.7% ("why") ("why" vs usual care: OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.81-1.28). At 6 weeks, "why" outperformed "how" for vaccination (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 1.06-1.49), with no difference versus usual care.

conclusionsWe found no differences on visit booster receipt after single pre-visit portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory. Further studies to identify effective messaging interventions are needed, especially as additional doses are recommended. CLINICAL

trial registrationThis trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT04871776 . Initial release occurred 04/30/2021.

Indexed as

COVID-19Patient PortalsVaccinesAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19 booster vaccinationsmessaging

Identifiers

PMID37932539
PMCPMC10973315
OpenAlexW4388409385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.