Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025
Nudging towards COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in children with medically at-risk conditions.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Bing, Andraweera Prabha, Danchin Margie, Blyth Christopher C, Vlaev Ivo, Ong Jason J, Dodd Jodie, Couper Jennifer, Sullivan Thomas R, Cuthbert Alana R, Rak Ashleigh, Herewane Kirsty, Paparo Louisa, Karnon Jonathan, Spurrier Nicola, Cusack Michael, Mordaunt Dylan, Simatos Dimi, Dekker Gus, Carlson Samantha, Tuckerman Jane, Wood Nicholas, Whop Lisa, Marshall Helen S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Non-coercive 'nudge' interventions have shown the potential to promote health behaviours. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of nudge interventions on COVID-19/influenza vaccine uptake among children with medically at-risk conditions.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted, and participants were randomized (1:1) to standard care or intervention. The multicomponent nudge interventions included three text messages with video links, developed using the MINDSPACE framework.
RESULTS: In the COVID-19 RCT, 554 were randomized to intervention and 552 to standard care, with 15.3% opting out of text messages. Over 3 months, eight children in the intervention group (1.4%) and nine in the standard care group (1.6%) received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio (OR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34-2.35). In the influenza RCT, 564 were randomized to intervention and 567 to standard care. There was no difference in the percentage vaccinated against influenza between the intervention (25.7%) and standard care (23.8%) groups (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.85-1.45).
CONCLUSIONS: The nudge interventions were ineffective at increasing COVID-19/influenza vaccine uptake. The study included mostly unvaccinated children, and low vaccination rates during the study likely impacted the evaluation results. Nudges may need to evolve with changes to public trust in technology and communications.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted, and participants were randomized (1:1) to standard care or intervention. The multicomponent nudge interventions included three text messages with video links, developed using the MINDSPACE framework.
RESULTS: In the COVID-19 RCT, 554 were randomized to intervention and 552 to standard care, with 15.3% opting out of text messages. Over 3 months, eight children in the intervention group (1.4%) and nine in the standard care group (1.6%) received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (odds ratio (OR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34-2.35). In the influenza RCT, 564 were randomized to intervention and 567 to standard care. There was no difference in the percentage vaccinated against influenza between the intervention (25.7%) and standard care (23.8%) groups (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.85-1.45).
CONCLUSIONS: The nudge interventions were ineffective at increasing COVID-19/influenza vaccine uptake. The study included mostly unvaccinated children, and low vaccination rates during the study likely impacted the evaluation results. Nudges may need to evolve with changes to public trust in technology and communications.