Trial reportHealth education research2025
Designing and evaluating a technology-based intervention to address deep ambivalence about COVID vaccination among people who inject drugs.
Trial report in Health education research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Developing Spanish Language Intervention Content to Address Health Disparities among People Who Use Drugs, and Other Hard-To-Reach Populations.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To encourage people who inject drugs to vaccinate against COVID-19, our research team collaborated with a harm reduction organization in East Harlem to create a multilevel, technology-based intervention that combined a brief (<6 minute) educational video with pre-post-test items measuring the likelihood of vaccination, attitudes, and vaccine-related heath literacy. A total of 545 participants completed the intervention; 45 vaccinated at the end of their first study visit. The remaining 500 were randomly assigned to two groups that were sent different text message configurations to examine which more effectively encouraged follow-up vaccination. The intervention group received Multimedia Messaging Service text messages featuring combinations of words and images, similar to frames of a graphic novel; the control group received Short Message Service texts consisting solely of words. Among those who did not vaccinate at first visit, 26 (7 intervention group and 19 control) vaccinated at follow-up. Greater vaccine-related knowledge (e.g. the vaccine does not contain a live virus) and positive vaccine attitudes were significantly associated with post intervention vaccination. Misinformation and misconceptions (i.e. vaccines are population control; vaccination is only for people who are already sick) emerged as powerful barriers to vaccination. Further research is warranted to address other forms of vaccine hesitancy among additional high-risk populations.
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.