Trial reportJMIR formative research2025
Online Tailored Decision Aid for Maternal Pertussis Vaccination in a Randomized Controlled Trial: Process Evaluation Study.
Trial report in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo promote informed decision-making and maternal pertussis vaccination (MPV) uptake, we systematically developed an interactive, web-based decision aid for pregnant users. Intervention reach (the percentage of participants in the intervention group who used the intervention), use (how much and how long those participants used the intervention), and acceptability (how positively they evaluated the intervention) are essential for it to be effective and should be reported to assess which intervention components may have been effective.
objectiveThis is a process evaluation aiming to evaluate (1) the reach and (2) the use, and (3) the acceptability of the intervention.
methodsWe analyzed the reach and use of the intervention among participants in the intervention group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that assessed the effects of an online tailored decision aid in the form of a web app. Participants were recruited via social media and midwifery clinics and invited via email to use the intervention at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Reach was measured objectively by assessing the number of participants who visited the intervention at least once. Use of the intervention was logged and included time spent on the decision aid, the number of times clicked, pages visited, and answers given in interactive components. Data from the baseline survey (at <18 wk of pregnancy) were used to measure sociodemographics, informed decision-making, MPV uptake, and determinants of uptake. A posttest survey (20-22 weeks of pregnancy) was used to evaluate the acceptability of the decision aid. We report the findings descriptively and assess baseline differences between those who used versus those who did not use the intervention.
resultsOf the 586 participants in the intervention group, 463 (79%) reached the home page of the intervention. Intervention reach appeared higher among those in their first pregnancy (8.35% difference, P=.11), those recruited via their midwife rather than via social media (10.56% difference, P=.04), and those who had completed a higher educational level (7.35% difference, P=.06). On average, participants spent 4.25 (SD 4.39) minutes on the decision aid. Most participants used the decision aid once (56.2% of those who reached it, n=260) or twice (26.6%, n=123). The average number of clicks was 27.24 (SD 25.08) and varied widely. Regarding acceptability, participants evaluated the decision aid positively with an overall grade of 8.0 out of 10 (SD 1.01). In total, 38.9% (180/463) of participants who used the intervention indicated that the decision aid helped them with their MPV decision-making.
conclusionsThe reach of the decision aid was successful with 79%, and participants were very positive about the decision aid. The use of the intervention (eg, time spent on the intervention) leaves room for improvement and should be improved to maximize intervention effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.