OBJECTIVE: To determine whether provision of vaccine-health-literacy-promoting information in text message vaccine reminders improves receipt and timeliness of the second dose of influenza vaccine within a season for children in need of 2 doses. METHODS:During the 2012-2013 season, families of eligible 6-month through 8-year-old children were recruited at the time of their first influenza vaccination from 3 community clinics in New York City. Children (n = 660) were randomly assigned to "educational" text message, "conventional" text message, and "written reminder-only" arms. At enrollment, all arms received a written reminder with next dose due date. Conventional messages included second dose due date and clinic walk-in hours. Educational messages added information regarding the need for a timely second dose. Receipt of second dose by April 30 was assessed by using χ(2) tests. Timeliness was assessed by receipt of second dose by 2 weeks after due date (day 42) using χ(2) and over time using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Most families were Latino and publicly insured with no significant between-arm differences between groups. Children in the educational arm were more likely to receive a second dose by April 30 (72.7%) versus conventional (66.7%) versus written reminder-only arm (57.1%; P = .003). They also had more timely receipt by day 42 (P < .001) and over time (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this low-income, urban, minority population, embedding health literacy information improved the effectiveness of text message reminders in promoting timely delivery of a second dose of influenza vaccine, compared with conventional text messages and written reminder only.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether provision of vaccine-health-literacy-promoting information in text message vaccine reminders improves receipt and timeliness of the second dose of influenza vaccine within a season for children in need of 2 doses. METHODS: During the 2012-2013 season, families of eligible 6-month through 8-year-old children were recruited at the time of their first influenza vaccination from 3 community clinics in New York City. Children (n = 660) were randomly assigned to "educational" text message, "conventional" text message, and "written reminder-only" arms. At enrollment, all arms received a written reminder with next dose due date. Conventional messages included second dose due date and clinic walk-in hours. Educational messages added information regarding the need for a timely second dose. Receipt of second dose by April 30 was assessed by using χ(2) tests. Timeliness was assessed by receipt of second dose by 2 weeks after due date (day 42) using χ(2) and over time using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Most families were Latino and publicly insured with no significant between-arm differences between groups. Children in the educational arm were more likely to receive a second dose by April 30 (72.7%) versus conventional (66.7%) versus written reminder-only arm (57.1%; P = .003). They also had more timely receipt by day 42 (P < .001) and over time (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this low-income, urban, minority population, embedding health literacy information improved the effectiveness of text message reminders in promoting timely delivery of a second dose of influenza vaccine, compared with conventional text messages and written reminder only.
Authors: P A Briss; L E Rodewald; A R Hinman; A M Shefer; R A Strikas; R R Bernier; V G Carande-Kulis; H R Yusuf; S M Ndiaye; S M Williams Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Carolyn Buxton Bridges; Susan Shetterly; Kristi Yamasaki; Margarette Kolczak; Eric K France Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Simon J Hambidge; Arthur J Davidson; Stephanie L Phibbs; Vijayalaxmi Chandramouli; Gary Zerbe; Charles W LeBaron; John F Steiner Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2004-02
Authors: Vincent J Grant; Nicole Le Saux; Amy C Plint; Rhonda Correll; Isabelle Gaboury; Edward Ellis; Theresa W S Tam Journal: CMAJ Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: William W Thompson; David K Shay; Eric Weintraub; Lynnette Brammer; Carolyn B Bridges; Nancy J Cox; Keiji Fukuda Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Fedele; Christopher C Cushing; Alyssa Fritz; Christina M Amaro; Adrian Ortega Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina Albertin; Alejandra Casillas; Rebecca Valderrama; O Kenrik Duru; Michael K Ong; Sitaram Vangala; Chi-Hong Tseng; Cynthia M Rand; Sharon G Humiston; Sharon Evans; Michael Sloyan; Carlos Lerner Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Paula M Frew; Jennifer L Kriss; Allison T Chamberlain; Fauzia Malik; Yunmi Chung; Marielysse Cortés; Saad B Omer Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina S Albertin; Alison W Saville; Rebecca Valderrama; Abigail Breck; Laura Helmkamp; Xinkai Zhou; Sitaram Vangala; L Miriam Dickinson; Chi-Hong Tseng; Jonathan D Campbell; Melanie D Whittington; Heather Roth; Cynthia M Rand; Sharon G Humiston; Dina Hoefer; Allison Kempe Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Christopher W Kahler; Anthony Surace; Rebecca E F Gordon; Patricia A Cioe; Nichea S Spillane; Acacia Parks; Beth C Bock; Richard A Brown Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ruthy McIver; Amalie Dyda; Anna M McNulty; Vickie Knight; Handan C Wand; Rebecca J Guy Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497