'Reducing Delays In Vaccination' (REDIVAC) trial: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a web-based, individually tailored, educational intervention to improve timeliness of infant vaccination

Amanda F Dempsey, Nicole Wagner, Komal Narwaney, Jennifer Pyrzanowski, Bethany M Kwan, Courtney Kraus, Kathy Gleason, Ken Resnicow, Carter Sevick, Jessica Cataldi, Sarah E Brewer, Jason M Glanz, Amanda F Dempsey, Nicole Wagner, Komal Narwaney, Jennifer Pyrzanowski, Bethany M Kwan, Courtney Kraus, Kathy Gleason, Ken Resnicow, Carter Sevick, Jessica Cataldi, Sarah E Brewer, Jason M Glanz

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing numbers of children are failing to receive many recommended vaccines, which has led to significant outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in the USA and worldwide. A major driver of undervaccination is parental vaccine hesitance. Prior research demonstrates that mothers are the primary decision maker for infant vaccination, and that their vaccination attitudes form primarily during pregnancy and early in their infant's life.

Methods and analysis: This manuscript describes the protocol for an ongoing three-armed randomised controlled trial done at Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO). The trial aims to test the efficacy of provided tailored, individualised information via the Internet to pregnant and new mothers versus untailored information versus usual care on the timeliness of infant vaccination. The primary outcome to be assessed is vaccination status, which is a dichotomous outcome (up to date vs not) assessed at age 200 days, reflecting the time when infants should have completed the first set of vaccine provided (at age 2, 4 and 6 months). Infants with one or more age-appropriate recommended vaccines at least 30 days delayed are categorised as not up to date whereas all other infants are considered up to date. Secondary outcomes include vaccination status at age 489 days, reflecting receipt of recommended vaccines at age 12-15 months, as well as vaccination attitudes, hesitancy and intention. Vaccination data will be derived from the electronic medical record and the state immunisation registry. Other secondary outcomes will be assessed by online surveys.

Ethics and dissemination: The study activities were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Colorado, KPCO and the University of Michigan. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts and conference presentations.

Trial registration number: NCT02665013; Pre-results.

Keywords: immunisation; mothers; randomised controlled trial; vaccine hesitancy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AFD serves on Advisory Boards for Merck, Pfizer and Sanofi Pasteur, and has provided consulting services to Pfizer. She does not receive any research funding from these companies. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Model of parental vaccine values, vaccine attitudes, hesitancy and behaviour.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) ‘Landing page’ of the VAYB website annotated to highlight various types of message tailoring. The right arrow denotes the ‘Just for You’ tiles that represent the most highly tailored content on the VAYB website. The left arrow denotes additional text reflecting lightly tailored material that is particularly salient to the participant based on their survey responses. (B) Landing page of corresponding untailored website that lacks message tailoring. VAYB, Vaccines and Your Baby.

References

    1. Roush SW, Murphy TV. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA 2007;298:2155–63. 10.1001/jama.298.18.2155
    1. Omer SB, Pan WK, Halsey NA, et al. . Nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements: secular trends and association of state policies with pertussis incidence. JAMA 2006;296:1757–63. 10.1001/jama.296.14.1757
    1. Glanz JM, Newcomer SR, Narwaney KJ, et al. . A population-based cohort study of undervaccination in 8 managed care organizations across the United States. JAMA Pediatr 2013;167:274–81. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.502
    1. Omer SB, Salmon DA, Orenstein WA, et al. . Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1981–8. 10.1056/NEJMsa0806477
    1. Siddiqui M, Salmon DA, Omer SB. Epidemiology of vaccine hesitancy in the United States. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2013;9:2643–8. 10.4161/hv.27243
    1. Committee NVA. Assessing the State of Vaccine Confidence in the United States: recommendations from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee. Public Health Rep 2015;130:573–95. 10.1177/003335491513000606
    1. Trivedi D. Cochrane review summary: Face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2014;15:339–41. 10.1017/S1463423614000322
    1. Sadaf A, Richards JL, Glanz J, et al. . A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine 2013;31:4293–304. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.07.013
    1. Connors JT, Slotwinski KL, Hodges EA. Provider-parent communication when discussing vaccines: a systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs 2017;33 10.1016/j.pedn.2016.11.002
    1. MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy: definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine 2015;33:4161–4. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036
    1. Dubé E, Vivion M, MacDonald NE. Vaccine hesitancy, vaccine refusal and the anti-vaccine movement: influence, impact and implications. Expert Rev Vaccines 2015;14:99–117. 10.1586/14760584.2015.964212
    1. Opel DJ, Marcuse EK. Window or mirror: social networks' role in immunization decisions. Pediatrics 2013;131:e1619–e1620. 10.1542/peds.2013-0531
    1. Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. . The architecture of provider-parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits. Pediatrics 2013;132:1037–46. 10.1542/peds.2013-2037
    1. Hough-Telford C, Kimberlin DW, Aban I, et al. . Vaccine delays, refusals, and patient dismissals: a survey of pediatricians. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20162127 10.1542/peds.2016-2127
    1. MacDonald NE, Butler R, Dubé E. Addressing barriers to vaccine acceptance: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2018;14 10.1080/21645515.2017.1394533
    1. Hawkins RP, Kreuter M, Resnicow K, et al. . Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Educ Res 2008;23:454–66. 10.1093/her/cyn004
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Glassman B. One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med 1999;21:276–83. 10.1007/BF02895958
    1. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 2007;133:673–93. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673
    1. A I. The theory of planned behavior. Organiz Behavior and Human Dec Processes 1991;50:179–211.
    1. Homer PM, Kahle LR. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988;54:638–46. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638
    1. McCain J. To heal the body, get into the patient’s head: motivational interviewing: to improve adherence. Biotechnol Healthc 2012;9:10–12.
    1. Sweeney AM, Moyer A. Self-affirmation and responses to health messages: a meta-analysis on intentions and behavior. Health Psychol 2015;34:149–59. 10.1037/hea0000110
    1. Flannery M. Self-Determination theory: intrinsic motivation and behavioral change. Oncol Nurs Forum 2017;44:155–6. 10.1188/17.ONF.155-156
    1. WRMaS R. Motivational interviewing: preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press, 1991.
    1. Boer D, Fischer R. How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychol Bull 2013;139:1113–47. 10.1037/a0031347
    1. Shim S, Maggs J. A cognitive and behavioral hierarchical decision-making model of college students' alcohol consumption. Psychology and Marketing 2005;22:649–68. 10.1002/mar.20078
    1. Boer D, Fischer R. How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude-value linkages. Psychol Bull 2013;139:1113–47. 10.1037/a0031347
    1. Glanz JM, Kraus CR, Daley MF. Addressing parental vaccine concerns: engagement, balance, and timing. PLoS Biol 2015;13:e1002227 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002227
    1. O’Leary ST, Brewer SE, Pyrzanowski J, et al. . Timing of information-seeking about infant vaccines. J Pediatr 2018;203:125–30. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.046
    1. Concerns JAS. Attitudes, beliefs and intentions of parents about vaccines for their child. Denver, CO: School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 2015.
    1. Kwan B, Dempsey AF, Cataldi J, et al. . The relationship between parental values and attitudes towards childhood vaccination: informing tailored interventions. Paper presented at: Society of Behavioral Medicine. Washington, DC, 2016.
    1. Cataldi J, Sevick C, Wagner N, et al. . Personal values: a new target for addressing vaccine hesitancy? Paper presented at: Pediatric Academic Societies. Baltimore, MD, 2016.
    1. Daley MF, Narwaney KJ, Shoup JA, et al. . Addressing Parents' Vaccine Concerns: a randomized trial of a social media intervention. Am J Prev Med 2018;55:44–54. 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.010
    1. National Center for Education in maternal and Child Health. Bright futures: guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents. 2nd edn Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in maternal and Child Health, 2002.
    1. Robinson CL, Romero JR, Kempe A, et al. . Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger - United States, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:134–5. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6605e1
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. . CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012;10:28–55. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner