Peter G Szilagyi1, Christina S Albertin2, Alison W Saville3, Rebecca Valderrama2, Abigail Breck2, Laura Helmkamp3, Xinkai Zhou4, Sitaram Vangala4, L Miriam Dickinson3, Chi-Hong Tseng4, Jonathan D Campbell5, Melanie D Whittington5, Heather Roth6, Cynthia M Rand7, Sharon G Humiston8, Dina Hoefer9, Allison Kempe3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: pszilagyi@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 4. Department of Medicine, Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO. 6. Colorado Immunization Information System, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy, Kansas City, MO. 9. New York State Immunization Information System, New York State Department of Health, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.
Authors: Cheryl D Tierney; Hussain Yusuf; Shawn R McMahon; Donna Rusinak; Megan A O' Brien; Mehran S Massoudi; Tracy A Lieu Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Allison Kempe; Matthew F Daley; Jennifer Barrow; Norma Allred; Nellie Hester; Brenda L Beaty; Lori A Crane; Kellyn Pearson; Stephen Berman Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Melissa S Stockwell; Elyse Olshen Kharbanda; Raquel Andres Martinez; Celibell Y Vargas; David K Vawdrey; Stewin Camargo Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lisa A Grohskopf; Leslie Z Sokolow; Karen R Broder; Sonja J Olsen; Ruth A Karron; Daniel B Jernigan; Joseph S Bresee Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2016-08-26
Authors: Julie C Jacobson Vann; Robert M Jacobson; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Josephine K Asafu-Adjei; Peter G Szilagyi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-18
Authors: Carlos Lerner; Christina Albertin; Alejandra Casillas; O Kenrik Duru; Michael K Ong; Sitaram Vangala; Sharon Humiston; Sharon Evans; Michael Sloyan; Craig R Fox; Jonathan E Bogard; Sarah Friedman; Peter G Szilagyi Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina S Albertin; Alejandra Casillas; Rebecca Valderrama; O Kenrik Duru; Michael K Ong; Sitaram Vangala; Chi-Hong Tseng; Sharon G Humiston; Sharon Evans; Michael Sloyan; Jonathan E Bogard; Craig R Fox; Carlos Lerner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 5.128