Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38117499›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Electronically Delivered Nudges to Increase Influenza Vaccination Uptake in Older Adults With Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of the NUDGE-FLU Trial.

Mats C Højbjerg Lassen, Niklas Dyrby Johansen, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Ankeet S Bhatt, Simin Gharib Lee, Daniel Modin, Brian L Claggett, Erica L Dueger, Sandrine I Samson, Matthew M Loiacono and 8 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05542004 (Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing InFLUenza Vaccine Uptake), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

NCT05542004 nacompletednot on this map

Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing InFLUenza Vaccine Uptake

TypeinterventionalSponsorTor Biering-SørensenRan2022 to 2023Enrolled964,870ConditionsInfluenza, Behavior and Behavior MechanismsArmsBehavioral Economic Principles
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

18 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Mats C Højbjerg LassenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niklas Dyrby JohansenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Muthiah VaduganathanCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ankeet S BhattCenter for Cardiometabolic Implementation Science, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Simin Gharib LeeCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daniel ModinDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Brian L ClaggettCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Erica L DuegerSanofi, Lyon, France.
Sandrine I SamsonSanofi, Lyon, France.
Matthew M LoiaconoSanofi, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania.
Michael FralickSinai Health System, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lars KøberDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Scott D SolomonCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Pradeesh SivapalanRespiratory Medicine Section, Department of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens Ulrik Stæhr JensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cyril Jean-Marie MartelEpidemiological Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tyra Grove KrauseEpidemiological Infectious Disease Preparedness, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tor Biering-SørensenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gentofte Hospital · DKBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USSanofi (France) · FRStatens Serum Institut · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKSanofi (United States) · USSinai Health System · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Influenza vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of mortality in patients with diabetes, but vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Objective: To assess the effect of electronic nudges on influenza vaccination uptake according to diabetes status. Design, Setting, and Participants: The NUDGE-FLU (Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake) trial was a nationwide clinical trial of Danish citizens 65 years or older that randomized participants at the household level to usual care or 9 different electronic nudge letters during the 2022 to 2023 influenza season. End of follow-up was January 1, 2023. This secondary analysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial was performed from May to July 2023. Intervention: Nine different electronic nudge letters designed to boost influenza vaccination were sent in September to October 2022. Effect modification by diabetes status was assessed in a pooled analysis of all intervention arms vs usual care and for individual letters. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was receipt of a seasonal influenza vaccine. Results: The trial included 964 870 participants (51.5% female; mean [SD] age, 73.8 [6.3] years); 123 974 had diabetes. During follow-up, 83.5% with diabetes vs 80.2% without diabetes received a vaccine (P < .001). In the pooled analysis, nudges improved vaccination uptake in participants without diabetes (80.4% vs 80.0%; difference, 0.37 percentage points; 99.55% CI, 0.08 to 0.66), whereas there was no evidence of effect in those with diabetes (83.4% vs 83.6%; difference, -0.19 percentage points; 99.55% CI, -0.89 to 0.51) (P = .02 for interaction). In the main results of NUDGE-FLU, 2 of the 9 behaviorally designed letters (cardiovascular benefits letter and a repeated letter) significantly increased uptake of influenza vaccination vs usual care; these benefits similarly appeared attenuated in participants with diabetes (cardiovascular gain letter: 83.7% vs 83.6%; difference, 0.04 percentage points; 99.55% CI, -1.52 to 1.60; repeated letter: 83.5% vs 83.6%; difference, -0.15 percentage points; 99.55% CI, -1.71 to 1.41) vs those without diabetes (cardiovascular gain letter: 81.1% vs 80.0%; difference, 1.06 percentage points; 99.55% CI, 0.42 to 1.70; repeated letter: 80.9% vs 80.0%; difference, 0.87 percentage points; 99.55% CI, 0.22 to 1.52) (P = .07 for interaction). Conclusions and Relevance: In this exploratory subgroup analysis, electronic nudges improved influenza vaccination uptake in persons without diabetes, whereas there was no evidence of an effect in persons with diabetes. Trials are needed to investigate the effect of digital nudges specifically tailored to individuals with diabetes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05542004.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAgedFemaleGovernmentHumansMaleVaccinationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID38117499
PMCPMC10733794
OpenAlexW4389992555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.