Abstract
Background High vaccination rates are needed to protect against influenza and to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Health authorities need to know if supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence to the community would increase uptake.
Objectives The primary objective is to determine if sending a single written message directly to individuals increases influenza vaccine uptake, and a secondary objective is to identify any identified content shown to increase influenza vaccine uptake.
Methods PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched for English language RCTs testing a single correspondence for members of the community in OECD countries to obtain influenza vaccination. A meta-analysis with inverse-variance, random-effects modelling was used to estimate a mean, weighted risk ratio effect size measure of vaccine uptake. Studies were quality assessed and analysis was undertaken to account for potential publication bias.
Results Twenty-two randomized controlled trials were included covering 37 interventions. Of the 37 interventions, 32 (86%) report an increase in influenza vaccination rates. A formal meta-analysis shows that sending a single written message increases influenza vaccine uptake by 18% (RR = 1.18, 95%CI [1.13-1.22], Z = 8.56, p < .001) relative to the no contact comparator group. Analysis shows that the intervention is effective across correspondence type, age group, time, and location, and after allowing for risk of publication bias.
Limitations The review was restricted to English language publications, and the generalizability of results across the OECD may be questioned.
Conclusions and implications The implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19, is that sending written vaccination correspondence to members of the community is likely to increase uptake.
The review was not registered nor was a protocol prepared due to time sensitivity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was not funded.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a meta-analysis of previously published primary studies. Therefore, RB/oversight body approval was not required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. An earlier version of this paper was prepared for the COVID-19 Communications and Behavioural Advisory Group (CBAG) of the Department of Health, Ireland. The Department of Health did not have any editorial role in the production of the research.
Data Availability
The template data collection forms and the data extracted from included studies is available upon request.