Evaluation of behavioral economic strategies to raise influenza vaccination rates across a health system: Results from a randomized clinical trial.

Influenza vaccination rates are low. Working with a large US health system, we evaluated three health system-wide interventions using the electronic health record's patient portal to improve influenza vaccination rates. We performed a two-arm RCT with a nested factorial design within the treatment arm, randomizing patients to usual-care control (no portal interventions) or to one or more portal interventions. We included all patients within this health system during the 2020-2021 influenza vaccination season, which overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the patient portal, we simultaneously tested: pre-commitment messages (sent September 2020, asking patients to commit to a vaccination); monthly portal reminders (October - December 2020), direct appointment scheduling (patients could self-schedule influenza vaccination at multiple sites); and pre-appointment reminder messages (sent before scheduled primary care appointments, reminding patients about influenza vaccination). The main outcome measure was receipt of influenza vaccine (10/01/2020-03/31/2021). We randomized 213,773 patients (196,070 adults ≥18 years, 17,703 children). Influenza vaccination rates overall were low (39.0%). Vaccination rates for study arms did not differ: Control (38.9%), pre-commitment vs no pre-commitment (39.2%/38.9%), direct appointment scheduling yes/no (39.1%/39.1%), pre-appointment reminders yes/no (39.1%/39.1%); p > 0.017 for all comparisons (p value cut-off adjusted for multiple comparisons). After adjusting for age, gender, insurance, race, ethnicity, and prior influenza vaccination, none of the interventions increased vaccination rates. We conclude that patient portal interventions to remind patients to receive influenza vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic did not raise influenza immunization rates. More intensive or tailored interventions are needed beyond portal innovations to increase influenza vaccination.

A Randomized Trial of Behavioral Nudges Delivered Through Text Messages to Increase Influenza Vaccination Among Patients With an Upcoming Primary Care Visit.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if nudges delivered by text message prior to an upcoming primary care visit can increase influenza vaccination rates. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two health systems in the Northeastern US between September 2020 and March 2021. SUBJECTS: 74,811 adults. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the 19 intervention arms received 1-2 text messages in the 3 days preceding their appointment that varied in their format, interactivity, and content. MEASURES: Influenza vaccination. ANALYSIS: Intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 50.7 (16.2) years; 55.8% (41,771) were female, 70.6% (52,826) were White, and 19.0% (14,222) were Black. Among the interventions, 5 of 19 (26.3%) had a significantly greater vaccination rate than control. On average, the 19 interventions increased vaccination relative to control by 1.8 percentage points or 6.1% (P = .005). The top performing text message described the vaccine to the patient as "reserved for you" and led to a 3.1 percentage point increase (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.9; P < .001) in vaccination relative to control. Three of the top five performing messages described the vaccine as "reserved for you." None of the interventions performed worse than control. CONCLUSIONS: Text messages encouraging vaccination and delivered prior to an upcoming appointment significantly increased influenza vaccination rates and could be a scalable approach to increase vaccination more broadly.

The protocol of improving safe antibiotic prescribing in telehealth: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CDC estimates that over 40% of Urgent Care visits are for acute respiratory infections (ARI), more than half involving inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. Previous randomized trials in primary care clinics resulted in reductions in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, but antibiotic stewardship interventions in telehealth have not been systematically assessed. To better understand how best to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in telehealth, we are conducting a large randomized quality improvement trial testing both patient- and physician-facing feedback and behavioral nudges embedded in the electronic health record. METHODS: Teladoc® clinicians are assigned to one of 9 arms in a 3 × 3 randomized trial. Each clinician is assigned to one of 3 Commitment groups (Public, Private, Control) and one of 3 Performance Feedback groups (Benchmark Peer Comparison, Trending, Control). After randomly selecting ⅓ of states and associated clinicians required for patient-facing components of the Public Commitment intervention, remaining clinicians are randomized to the Control and Private Commitment arms. Clinicians are randomized to the Performance Feedback conditions. The primary outcome is change from baseline in antibiotic prescribing rate for qualifying ARI visits. Secondary outcomes include changes in inappropriate prescribing and revisit rates. Secondary analyses include investigation of heterogeneity of treatment effects. With 1530 clinicians and an intra-clinician correlation in antibiotic prescribing rate of 0.5, we have >80% power to detect 1-7% absolute differences in antibiotic prescribing among groups. DISCUSSION: Findings from this trial may help inform telehealth stewardship strategies, determine whether significant differences exist between Commitment and Feedback interventions, and provide guidance for clinicians and patients to encourage safe and effective antibiotic use. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT05138874.

Effect of Peer Benchmarking on Specialist Electronic Consult Performance in a Los Angeles Safety-Net: a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of COVID-19, accelerated adoption of systems that reduce face-to-face encounters has outpaced training and best practices. Electronic consultations (eConsults), structured communications between PCPs and specialists regarding a case, have been effective in reducing face-to-face specialist encounters. As the health system rapidly adapts to multiple new practices and communication tools, new mechanisms to measure and improve performance in this context are needed. OBJECTIVE: To test whether feedback comparing physicians to top performing peers using co-specialists' ratings improves performance. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: Eighty facility-specialty clusters and 214 clinicians INTERVENTION: Providers in the feedback arms were sent messages that announced their membership in an elite group of "Top Performers" or provided actionable recommendations with feedback for providers that were "Not Top Performers." MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in peer ratings in the following performance dimensions after feedback was received: (1) elicitation of information from primary care practitioners; (2) adherence to institutional clinical guidelines; (3) agreement with peer's medical decision-making; (4) educational value; (5) relationship building. KEY RESULTS: Specialists showed significant improvements on 3 of the 5 consultation performance dimensions: medical decision-making (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.14, p<.05), educational value (1.86, 1.17-2.96) and relationship building (1.63, 1.13-2.35) (both p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has shed light on clinicians' commitment to professionalism and service as we rapidly adapt to changing paradigms. Interventions that appeal to professional norms can help improve the efficacy of new systems of practice. We show that specialists' performance can be measured and improved with feedback using aspirational norms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03784950.

The role of trust in the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine: Results from a national survey.

High acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is instrumental to ending the pandemic. Vaccine acceptance by subgroups of the population depends on their trust in COVID-19 vaccines. We surveyed a probability-based internet panel of 7832 adults from December 23, 2020-January 19, 2021 about their likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine and the following domains of trust: an individual's generalized trust, trust in COVID-19 vaccine's efficacy and safety, trust in the governmental approval process and general vaccine development process for COVID-19 vaccines, trust in their physician about COVID-19, and trust in other sources about COVID-19. We included identified at-risk subgroups: healthcare workers, older adults (65-74-year-olds and ≥ 75-year-olds), frontline essential workers, other essential workers, and individuals with high-risk chronic conditions. Of 5979 respondents, only 57.4% said they were very likely or somewhat likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine. More hesitant respondents (p < 0.05) included: women, young adults (18-49 years), Blacks, individuals with lower education, those with lower income, and individuals without high-risk chronic conditions. Lack of trust in the vaccine approval and development processes explained most of the demographic variation in stated vaccination likelihood, while other domains of trust explained less variation. We conclude that hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccines is high overall and among at-risk subgroups, and hesitancy is strongly tied to trust in the vaccine approval and development processes. Building trust is critical to ending the pandemic.