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.

Reduction of No-Show Rate for New Patients in a Pediatric Neurology Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The rate of patients not keeping their appointments at our children's hospital outpatient pediatric neurology clinic (no-shows) was high. We conducted a quality improvement project to reduce no-show rates and improve operational efficiency. Specifically, we aimed to decrease the new patient no-show mean rate from 7% to 4% at the main campus and from 17% to 12% at the south campus. METHODS: After reviewing the previous literature on this topic and institutional data, we used the simplified failure mode and effects analysis (sFMEA) to identify the key drivers. Of the patients at the main campus who failed to keep their appointment, 84% had not confirmed their appointment. Errors in inpatient/family contact information, limited use of the electronic patient portal, and miscommunication were other key drivers identified. Three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were completed over seven months. The key interventions we implemented were bidirectional text triage, telephone reminders, and promoting the use of the electronic patient portal. A run chart was used to assess the results of these interventions. RESULTS: A statistically significant shift was noted in the run chart for the median rate of no-shows, which declined from 7% to 4% at the main campus and 17% to 10% at the south campus. CONCLUSION: We were able to successfully reduce no-shows among new patients in the neurology clinic. The limitations of our study include unknown external factors, the potential impact of COVID-19, and the brief length of the study.

Telephone Reminders Improve Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a structured telephone reminder system on completion rates of screening fecal immunochemical tests. METHODS: Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) return rates were compared among patients who received a telephone reminder after 14 days and those who did not receive a reminder. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher return rate among patients who received a telephone reminder. Automated FIT tracking processes failed to capture a significant percentage of returned FITs compared with manual tracking processes. DISCUSSION: These results support telephone reminders as an effective modality to increase FIT return rates.

SMS reminders to improve outpatient attendance for public dental services: A retrospective study.

Patients who miss scheduled appointments reduce clinical productivity and delay access to care for other patients. Reminders have improved attendance for healthcare appointments previously, but it is not known if short message service (SMS) implementation reduces incidence of patients unable to attend (UTA) or who fail to attend (FTA) appointments in the public dental service. This paper studied the effectiveness of SMS reminders in increasing appointment attendance at outpatient public dental services in Queensland. Data were sourced from the adult service and the children and adolescent oral health service (CAOHS) at West Moreton Hospital and Health Service, a public dental service in Queensland. A total of 63,238 appointments pre-implementation of SMS reminders and 55,028 appointments post-implementation over a period of 2 years were analysed for rates of attendance, UTA and FTA. Characteristics of UTA and FTA appointments were analysed to identify factors that hindered improvement after implementation of reminders. For the CAOHS, the attendance rate decreased 4% (95% CI: 2%, 6%) following SMS implementation. The UTA rate also increased by 20% (95% CI: 15%, 25%). Following SMS implementation in the adult service, the attendance rate increased from 73.5 (95% CI: 72.6, 74.4) to 77.7 (95% CI: 76.6-78.8) per 100 appointments. The FTA rate post-implementation was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.16) times that from pre-intervention, and the UTA rate decreased from 21.7 (95% CI: 21.2, 22.2) to 17.1 (95% CI: 16.6, 17.7) per 100 appointments. The SMS reminders had a mixed effect on the attendance, UTA and FTA rates for the CAOHS and adult services. Reminders reduced the rates of UTA for the CAOHS service and increased the rate of attendance for the adult service. There was an increase in the FTA rate for both services.

Effect of Text Message Reminders and Vaccine Reservations on Adherence to a Health System COVID-19 Vaccination Policy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many organizations implemented COVID-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic, but the best way to increase adherence to these policies is unknown. Objective: To evaluate if behavioral nudges delivered through text messages could accelerate adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted within Ascension health system from October 11 to November 8, 2021. Participants included health system employees in the Midwest or South US who were not adherent with the vaccination policy 1 month before its deadline. Data were analyzed from November 17, 2021, to February 25, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to control or to receive a text message intervention that stated a vaccine had been reserved for the participant, with a scheduled date for vaccination within a 2-week period. Participants could reschedule to a different date within the period or upload a copy of their vaccination card. Follow-up text message reminders were sent the day before and the day of the appointment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the health system's vaccination policy during the 2-week intervention. Secondary outcomes included time to vaccination during a 4-week follow-up period. Results: The sample included 2000 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.4 [12.3] years; 1724 [86.2%] women), with 1000 participants randomized to the control group and 1000 participants randomized to the intervention group. Overall, there were 164 Hispanic participants (8.2%), 46 non-Hispanic Asian participants (2.3%), 202 non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1%), and 1418 non-Hispanic White participants (70.9%). By the end of the 2-week intervention, 363 participants in the text message nudge group (36.3%) and 318 participants in the control group (31.8%) were adherent with the vaccination policy, representing a significant increase of 4.9 (95% CI, 0.8 to 9.1) percentage points in adjusted analyses comparing the nudge group with the control group (P = .02). Among participants who became adherent by the end of the 4-week follow-up period, the text message nudge significantly reduced time to adherence by a mean of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.7) days (P < .001) and a median of 5.0 (95% CI, 2.5 to 7.7) days (P < .001) compared with the control group. At 4 weeks, overall vaccination adherence was no longer different between groups (control: 477 participants [47.7%]; intervention: 472 participants [47.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that a behavioral nudge delivered through text messages accelerated adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy but did change overall adherence by the time of the policy deadline. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037201.

Effect of Text Messaging and Behavioral Interventions on COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 vaccine uptake among urban populations remains low. Objective: To evaluate whether text messaging with outbound or inbound scheduling and behaviorally informed content might increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial with a factorial design was conducted from April 29 to July 6, 2021, in an urban academic health system. The trial comprised 16 045 patients at least 18 years of age in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with at least 1 primary care visit in the past 5 years, or a future scheduled primary care visit within the next 3 months, who were unresponsive to prior outreach. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol, and data were obtained from the intent-to-treat population. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:20:20 ratio to (1) outbound telephone call only by call center, (2) text message and outbound telephone call by call center to those who respond, or (3) text message, with patients instructed to make an inbound telephone call to a hotline. Patients in groups 2 and 3 were concurrently randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive different content: standard messaging, clinician endorsement (eg, "Dr. XXX recommends"), scarcity ("limited supply available"), or endowment framing ("We have reserved a COVID-19 vaccine appointment for you"). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who completed the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within 1 month, according to the electronic health record. Secondary outcomes were the completion of the first dose within 2 months and completion of the vaccination series within 2 months of initial outreach. Additional outcomes included the percentage of patients with invalid cell phone numbers (wrong number or nontextable), no response to text messaging, the percentage of patients scheduled for the vaccine, text message responses, and the number of telephone calls made by the access center. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Among the 16 045 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 36.9 (11.1) years; 9418 (58.7%) were women; 12 869 (80.2%) had commercial insurance, and 2283 (14.2%) were insured by Medicaid; 8345 (52.0%) were White, 4706 (29.3%) were Black, and 967 (6.0%) were Hispanic or Latino. At 1 month, 14 of 390 patients (3.6% [95% CI, 1.7%-5.4%]) in the outbound telephone call-only group completed 1 vaccine dose, as did 243 of 7890 patients (3.1% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.5%]) in the text plus outbound call group (absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -2.4% to 1.4%]; P = .57) and 253 of 7765 patients (3.3% [95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%]) in the text plus inbound call group (absolute difference, -0.3% [95% CI, -2.2% to 1.6%]; P = .72). Among the 15 655 patients receiving text messaging, 118 of 3889 patients (3.0% [95% CI, 2.5%-3.6%]) in the standard messaging group completed 1 vaccine dose, as did 135 of 3920 patients (3.4% [95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%]) in the clinician endorsement group (absolute difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.2%]; P = .31), 100 of 3911 patients (2.6% [95% CI, 2.1%-3.1%]) in the scarcity group (absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -1.2% to 0.3%]; P = .20), and 143 of 3935 patients (3.6% [95% CI, 3.0%-4.2%]) in the endowment group (absolute difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.4%]; P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no detectable increase in vaccination uptake among patients receiving text messaging compared with telephone calls only or behaviorally informed message content. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834726.

The effects of text reminders on the use of family planning services: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in urban Mozambique.

INTRODUCTION: Reduction of unmet need for contraception is associated with enhanced health outcomes. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in Mozambique analysing the effects of text messages encouraging use of family planning services. METHODS: This trial was conducted within a sample of women served by the Integrated Family Planning Program implemented by Population Services International, in which community health workers provide clinic referrals for family planning services. The evaluation enrolled 5370 women between 20 January and 18 December 2020 who received a referral, reported access to a mobile phone and provided consent. Women were randomly assigned to a treatment group that received a series of text message reminders encouraging them to visit a clinic or to a control arm. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted to analyse the effect of reminders on the probability of a clinic visit and contraceptive uptake. The final analysis includes 3623 women; 1747 women were lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Women assigned to receive the text reminders are weakly more likely to visit a clinic (risk difference 2.3 percentage points, p=0.081) and to receive a contraceptive method at a clinic (2.2 percentage points, p=0.091), relative to a base rate of 48.0% and 46.9%, respectively. The effect on clinic visits is larger and statistically significant in the prespecified subsample of women enrolled prior to the COVID-19-related state of emergency (3.2 percentage points, p=0.042). CONCLUSION: Evidence from this trial suggests that text message reminders are a promising nudge that increases the probability that women receive contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AEARCTR-0005383.

Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies.

Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was "waiting for you." Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy.

Mobile phone reminders for enhancing uptake, completeness and timeliness of routine childhood immunization in low and middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immunization remains one of the most effective public health interventions offering protection for children from vaccine preventable diseases. However, many children living in low- and- middle income countries do not get adequate immunization due to several factors. Mobile phone reminder interventions have shown great potential in enhancing a number of immunization outcomes. However, the evidence supporting its use in these countries is vague. This systematic review was conducted to provide evidence for mobile phone reminder in enhancing immunization uptake, completeness and timeliness. This review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA recommendations. Three online databases; PubMed, Cochrane Library and African Journals Online, were systematically searched for potentially relevant studies. Screening of records (titles/abstracts from and full-texts) was done using Covidence. Meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (v5.4). The GRADEpro was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence/summary of findings. Eleven RCTs assessing immunization uptake, completeness and/or timeliness by means of SMS, phone calls or a combination of voice message and SMS were included in both quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Overall, the included studies were of moderate quality. Majority of the included studies indicated that mobile phone reminders were beneficial. Meta-analyses indicated that using mobile phone reminder interventions for the review outcomes was of variable effect with high level of heterogeneity. A combination of voice message and SMS has a greater effect followed by phone calls then SMS reminders for immunization completeness. The use of SMS for immunization uptake and timeliness were largely insignificant (p > 0.05). Furthermore, evidence to support the efficacy of mobile phone reminder from the GRADE synthesis was between low and moderate. Mobile phone reminders, particularly a combination of voice message + SMS and perhaps phone calls appears to be more effective in enhancing immunization outcomes. However, more studies are required in view of methodological inadequacies in existing studies.

Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations.

Enhancing vaccine uptake is a critical public health challenge1. Overcoming vaccine hesitancy2,3 and failure to follow through on vaccination intentions3 requires effective communication strategies3,4. Here we present two sequential randomized controlled trials to test the effect of behavioural interventions on the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. We designed text-based reminders that make vaccination salient and easy, and delivered them to participants drawn from a healthcare system one day (first randomized controlled trial) (n = 93,354 participants; clinicaltrials number NCT04800965) and eight days (second randomized controlled trial) (n = 67,092 individuals; clinicaltrials number NCT04801524) after they received a notification of vaccine eligibility. The first reminder boosted appointment and vaccination rates within the healthcare system by 6.07 (84%) and 3.57 (26%) percentage points, respectively; the second reminder increased those outcomes by 1.65 and 1.06 percentage points, respectively. The first reminder had a greater effect when it was designed to make participants feel ownership of the vaccine dose. However, we found no evidence that combining the first reminder with a video-based information intervention designed to address vaccine hesitancy heightened its effect. We performed online studies (n = 3,181 participants) to examine vaccination intentions, which revealed patterns that diverged from those of the first randomized controlled trial; this underscores the importance of pilot-testing interventions in the field. Our findings inform the design of behavioural nudges for promoting health decisions5, and highlight the value of making vaccination easy and inducing feelings of ownership over vaccines.

Assessing the use of cell phones to monitor health and nutrition interventions: Evidence from rural Guatemala.

In-person (face-to-face) data collection methods offer many advantages but can also be time-consuming and expensive, particularly in areas of difficult access. We take advantage of the increasing mobile phone penetration rate in rural areas to evaluate the feasibility of using cell phones to monitor the provision of key health and nutrition interventions linked to the first 1,000 days of life, a critical period of growth and development. We examine response rates to calendarized text messages (SMS) and phone calls sent to 1,542 households over a period of four months. These households have children under two years old and pregnant women and are located across randomly selected communities in Quiche, Guatemala. We find that the overall (valid) response rate to phone calls is over 5 times higher than to text messages (75.8% versus 14.4%). We also test whether simple SMS reminders improve the timely reception of health services but do not find any effects in this regard. Language, education, and age appear to be major barriers to respond to text messages as opposed to phone calls, and the rate of response is not correlated with a household's geographic location (accessibility). Moreover, response veracity is high, with an 84-91% match between household responses and administrative records. The costs per monitored intervention are around 1.12 US dollars using text messages and 85 cents making phone calls, with the costs per effective answer showing a starker contrast, at 7.76 and 1.12 US dollars, respectively. Our findings indicate that mobile phone calls can be an effective, low-cost tool to collect reliable information remotely and in real time. In the current context, where in-person contact with households is not possible due to the COVID-19 crisis, phone calls can be a valuable instrument for collecting information, monitoring development interventions, or implementing brief surveys.

Results from a 2020 field experiment encouraging voting by mail.

The ability to cast a mail ballot can safeguard the franchise. However, because there are often additional procedural protections to ensure that a ballot cast in person counts, voting by mail can also jeopardize people's ability to cast a recorded vote. An experiment carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates both forces. Philadelphia officials randomly sent 46,960 Philadelphia registrants postcards encouraging them to apply to vote by mail in the lead-up to the June 2020 primary election. While the intervention increased the likelihood a registrant cast a mail ballot by 0.4 percentage points (P = 0.017)-or 3%-many of these additional mail ballots counted only because a last-minute policy intervention allowed most mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to count.

Strengthening Vaccine Confidence and Acceptance in the Pediatric Provider Office.

Although vaccine acceptance and uptake are overall high among children in the United States, vaccine delays or refusals are a growing concern. Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the pediatric provider, given the diverse factors associated with hesitancy and the limited evidence on effective strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the provider office. In this article, we review available evidence and approaches for vaccine communication, including the importance of using a whole-team approach, building trust, starting the conversation early, using a presumptive approach for vaccine recommendations, motivational interviewing with parents who have concerns for vaccines, and additional techniques for responding to parent questions. We also review organizational strategies to help create a culture of immunization in the practice, including evidence-based approaches for increasing vaccine uptake and efficiency. Although these communication approaches and organizational strategies are intended to reassure parents who are vaccine hesitant that all routine, universally recommended vaccines are safe and effective, they likely will take on increased significance as the development, implementation, and evaluation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines continue to unfold. [Pediatr Ann. 2020;49(12):e523-e531.].