Jason M Glanz1,2, Nicole M Wagner3,4, Komal J Narwaney3, Jennifer Pyrzanowski4, Bethany M Kwan4,5, Carter Sevick4, Kenneth Resnicow6, Amanda F Dempsey4,7. 1. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado; jason.m.glanz@kp.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 4. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science and. 5. Departments of Family Medicine and. 6. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado; and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To increase vaccine acceptance, we created a Web-based the "Vaccines and Your Baby" intervention (VAYB) that provided new parents with vaccine information messages tailored to vaccine beliefs and values. We evaluated the effectiveness of the VAYB by comparing timely uptake of infant vaccines to an untailored version of the intervention (UT) or usual care intervention (UC) only. METHODS:Between April 2016 and June 2019, we conducted a randomized clinical trial. Pregnant women and new parents were randomly assigned to the VAYB, UT, or UC arms. In the VAYB and UT arms, participants were exposed to interventions at 4 time points from pregnancy until their child was 15 months of age. The primary outcome was up-to-date status for recommended vaccines from birth to 200 days of age. A modified intent-to-treat analysis was conducted. Data were analyzed with logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We enrolled 824 participants (276 VAYB, 274 UT, 274 UC), 143 (17.4%) of whom were lost to follow-up. The up-to-date rates in the VAYB, UT, and UC arms were 91.44%, 92.86%, and 92.31%, respectively. Infants in the VAYB arm were not more likely to be up to date than infants in the UC arm (OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.76) or in the UT arm (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.42-1.63). The odds of being up to date did not differ between UT and UC arms (OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering Web-based vaccine messages tailored to parents' vaccine attitudes and values did not positively impact the timely uptake of infant vaccines.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To increase vaccine acceptance, we created a Web-based the "Vaccines and Your Baby" intervention (VAYB) that provided new parents with vaccine information messages tailored to vaccine beliefs and values. We evaluated the effectiveness of the VAYB by comparing timely uptake of infant vaccines to an untailored version of the intervention (UT) or usual care intervention (UC) only. METHODS: Between April 2016 and June 2019, we conducted a randomized clinical trial. Pregnant women and new parents were randomly assigned to the VAYB, UT, or UC arms. In the VAYB and UT arms, participants were exposed to interventions at 4 time points from pregnancy until their child was 15 months of age. The primary outcome was up-to-date status for recommended vaccines from birth to 200 days of age. A modified intent-to-treat analysis was conducted. Data were analyzed with logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We enrolled 824 participants (276 VAYB, 274 UT, 274 UC), 143 (17.4%) of whom were lost to follow-up. The up-to-date rates in the VAYB, UT, and UC arms were 91.44%, 92.86%, and 92.31%, respectively. Infants in the VAYB arm were not more likely to be up to date than infants in the UC arm (OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.76) or in the UT arm (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.42-1.63). The odds of being up to date did not differ between UT and UC arms (OR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-2.18). CONCLUSIONS: Delivering Web-based vaccine messages tailored to parents' vaccine attitudes and values did not positively impact the timely uptake of infant vaccines.
Authors: Jessica R Cataldi; Carter Sevick; Jennifer Pyrzanowski; Nicole Wagner; Sarah E Brewer; Komal J Narwaney; Jo Ann Shoup; Ken Resnicow; Jason Glanz; Amanda Dempsey; Bethany M Kwan Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Nora B Henrikson; Melissa L Anderson; Douglas J Opel; John Dunn; Edgar K Marcuse; David C Grossman Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: James Baggs; Julianne Gee; Edwin Lewis; Gabrielle Fowler; Patti Benson; Tracy Lieu; Allison Naleway; Nicola P Klein; Roger Baxter; Edward Belongia; Jason Glanz; Simon J Hambidge; Steven J Jacobsen; Lisa Jackson; Jim Nordin; Eric Weintraub Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-04-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: M K Campbell; B M DeVellis; V J Strecher; A S Ammerman; R F DeVellis; R S Sandler Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jason M Glanz; Sophia R Newcomer; Komal J Narwaney; Simon J Hambidge; Matthew F Daley; Nicole M Wagner; David L McClure; Stan Xu; Ali Rowhani-Rahbar; Grace M Lee; Jennifer C Nelson; James G Donahue; Allison L Naleway; James D Nordin; Marlene M Lugg; Eric S Weintraub Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Matthew F Daley; Jason M Glanz; Sophia R Newcomer; Michael L Jackson; Holly C Groom; Marlene M Lugg; Huong Q McLean; Nicola P Klein; Eric S Weintraub; Michael M McNeil Journal: Vaccine Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Elizabeth T Jordan; Jessica A Bushar; Juliette S Kendrick; Pamela Johnson; Jiangxia Wang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Bethany M Kwan; Jennifer Pyrzanowski; Carter Sevick; Nicole M Wagner; Kenneth Resnicow; Jason M Glanz; Amanda F Dempsey Journal: Appl Psychol Health Well Being Date: 2021-08-16