Trial reportHealth education research2026
Codesigning COVID-19 booster promotion materials in online workshops with long-term care staff: a process evaluation.
Trial report in Health education research, 2026. 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When engaging communities in vaccine promotion efforts, it is critical to understand who has availability and interest in participating, and how participants experience the process. Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework, we evaluated an online codesign process with long-term care center staff to design coronavirus disease (COVID-19) booster promotion materials for their colleagues. Twenty-six staff joined codesign teams organized by self-identified race to culturally tailor materials during a cluster-randomized controlled trial with 40 centers in two US states. Data sources included surveys; interviews; screening, enrollment, and attendance data; fidelity assessment; codesigned materials; and focus groups. We report summary statistics and thematic analyses. We found that time constraints could impede enrollment. Most codesigners enjoyed collaborating and identified their individual contributions. Many linked having shared characteristics with their teammates (e.g. race, gender, age) to a feeling of connection. A few reported feeling motivated to engage in booster promotion. The process resulted in messages aligned with known psychological antecedents of vaccination. Considering recruitment challenges and limited participation of direct care staff, organizers should consider shorter codesign processes. Organizing teams based on shared characteristics could promote comfort. Community input should inform codesign structure and team composition to achieve optimum enrollment and engagement.
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.