MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391899737 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076194

Nudging towards COVID-19 and influenza vaccination uptake in medically at-risk children: EPIC study protocol of randomised controlled trials in Australian paediatric outpatient clinics

2024· article· en· W4391899737 on OpenAlexaff
Bing Wang, Prabha H. Andraweera, Christopher C. Blyth, Ivo Vlaev, Jason J. Ong, Jodie M Dodd, Jennifer Couper, Thomas Sullivan, Jonathan Karnon, Nicola Spurrier, Michael Cusack, Dylan Mordaunt, Dimi Simatos, Gustaaf Dekker, Samantha Carlson, Jane Tuckerman, Nicholas Wood, Lisa J Whop, Helen Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
FundersAustralian GovernmentGovernment of Western AustraliaChildren's Hospital FoundationMedical Research CouncilSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineWomen's and Children's Hospital FoundationGovernment of South AustraliaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilState Government of VictoriaPfizer
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineVaccinationPediatricsIntervention (counseling)Research ethicsPsychiatryImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Children with chronic medical diseases are at an unacceptable risk of hospitalisation and death from influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections. Over the past two decades, behavioural scientists have learnt how to design non-coercive 'nudge' interventions to encourage positive health behaviours. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of multicomponent nudge interventions on the uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in medically at-risk children. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs), each with 1038 children, will enrol a total of approximately 2076 children with chronic medical conditions who are attending tertiary hospitals in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. Participants will be randomly assigned (1:1) to the standard care or intervention group. The nudge intervention in each RCT will consist of three text message reminders with four behavioural nudges including (1) social norm messages, (2) different messengers through links to short educational videos from a paediatrician, medically at-risk child and parent and nurse, (3) a pledge to have their child or themselves vaccinated and (4) information salience through links to the current guidelines and vaccine safety information. The primary outcome is the proportion of medically at-risk children who receive at least one dose of vaccine within 3 months of randomisation. Logistic regression analysis will be performed to determine the effect of the intervention on the probability of vaccination uptake. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and study documents have been reviewed and approved by the Women's and Children's Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/22/WCHN/2022/00082). The results will be published via peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings and public forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05613751.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207