ArticlePLOS global public health2026
The effect of mobile phone messaging to support COVID-19 vaccination in Colombia: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the speed required and the complexity of the information provided about vaccines highlighted the relevance of communicating evidence effectively during a sanitary emergency. We tested three interactive voice response (IVR) interventions, plus one control to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in an adult population in Colombia. We conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with four arms in Colombia between September and December 2022. Participants (n = 2,409) were recruited via random-digit dialing and followed for 7 weeks. Eligible individuals were adults who were not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 at baseline. Participants were randomized to a control arm or to one of three IVR message interventions: factual, narrative, or mixed (factual + narrative). The outcome measured was vaccine uptake during the assessment period. The intervention was provided by the engageSPARK platform. We used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Total observed follow-up exceeded 5,775 person-contacts. Exposure to any intervention was associated with higher odds of vaccination among participants who were not fully vaccinated at baseline and correctly answered the comprehension test (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.05-1.87), but not among those with no prior vaccine doses. In Cox models, assignment to any intervention was associated with a significantly higher hazard of vaccination compared with control (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.24-1.83). Stratified analyses showed a substantially higher vaccination rate among those with at least one vaccine at baseline (HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.25-1.88). All intervention arms showed similar effectiveness. This IVR-based intervention was effective in accelerating COVID-19 vaccination uptake among adults with at least one vaccine, highlighting the importance of prior acceptance to the vaccine. Message comprehension and intervention intensity determine intervention effectiveness. IVR-based interventions represent a scalable and potentially cost-effective tool for supporting vaccination in low- and middle-income countries.
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.