Suppr超能文献

证据总结能否使更多和较少弱势群体在 COVID-19 和流感疫苗接种方面做出知情决策?德国卫生和社会保健中“事实框”的多中心整群随机对照试验研究方案。

Do summaries of evidence enable informed decision-making about COVID-19 and influenza vaccination equitably across more and less disadvantaged groups? Study protocol for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 'fact boxes' in health and social care in Germany.

机构信息

Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany

Public Health Service Neukölln, Department of Public Health Service Neukölln, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 1;14(10):e083515. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083515.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Evidence summaries on the benefits and harms of treatment options support informed decisions under controlled conditions. However, few studies have investigated how such formats support decision-making across different social groups. There is a risk that only disadvantaged people will be able to make informed health decisions-possibly increasing the health equity gap. It is also unclear whether they support decision-making in the field at all. The aim of our study is to assess whether evidence summaries based on the fact box format can help people from different social groups make informed decisions about COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations, and thus reduce inequity in health communication.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, controlled trial, health educators from usual care and outreach work in Germany will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to provide either usual health communication plus an evidence summary ('fact box') or usual health communication. Health educators provide a flyer about COVID-19 or influenza vaccination which contains a link to an online study either with (intervention) or without (control) fact box on the reverse side. Flyer and online study will be available in Arabic, German, Turkish and Russian language. The primary outcome is informed vaccination intention, based on vaccination knowledge, attitudes, intentions and behaviour. Secondary outcomes include risk perception, decisional conflict and shared decision-making. We will use linear mixed models to analyse the influence of both individual (eg, education status) and cluster level factors and account for the expected cluster variability in realising usual health communication or the intervention. The statistical analysis plan includes the selection of appropriate measures of effect size and power calculation, assuming a sample size of 800 patients.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Potsdam, Germany (application numbers: 34/2021 and 57/2022).Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and to relevant stakeholders.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 6 (4 October 2024); Preprint available on Research Square: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3401234/v3 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06076421.

摘要

简介

针对治疗方案的益处和危害的证据总结支持在受控条件下做出知情决策。然而,很少有研究调查这些格式如何在不同社会群体中支持决策制定。存在一种风险,即只有处于不利地位的人才能做出明智的健康决策,这可能会扩大健康公平差距。目前也不清楚这些证据总结是否真的能够支持现场决策。我们的研究目的是评估基于事实框格式的证据总结是否能够帮助来自不同社会群体的人就 COVID-19 和流感疫苗接种做出明智的决策,从而减少健康传播中的不平等现象。

方法与分析

在一项多中心、集群随机、对照试验中,德国的常规护理和外展工作的健康教育工作者将以 1:1 的比例随机分配,提供常规健康沟通加证据总结(“事实框”)或常规健康沟通。健康教育工作者提供一张关于 COVID-19 或流感疫苗接种的传单,其中包含一个链接,链接到背面带有(干预)或不带有(对照)事实框的在线研究。传单和在线研究将提供阿拉伯语、德语、土耳其语和俄语版本。主要结果是根据疫苗接种知识、态度、意图和行为,衡量接种疫苗的意向。次要结果包括风险感知、决策冲突和共同决策。我们将使用线性混合模型来分析个人(例如,教育程度)和集群水平因素的影响,并考虑到在实现常规健康沟通或干预方面的预期集群变异性。统计分析计划包括选择适当的效应量度量和功效计算,假设样本量为 800 名患者。

伦理与传播

该试验已获得德国波茨坦大学伦理委员会的批准(申请编号:34/2021 和 57/2022)。结果将通过同行评议的期刊、会议和相关利益相关者传播。

协议版本

第 6 版(2024 年 10 月 4 日);预印本可在 Research Square 上获得:https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3401234/v3

试验注册编号

NCT06076421。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0c4a/11529688/b0b3d78c290b/bmjopen-14-10-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验