Moran W P, Nelson K, Wofford J L, Velez R, Case L D
Department of Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157-1051, USA.
Am J Med. 1996 Dec;101(6):612-20. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(96)00327-0.
To determine whether an educational brochure or a lottery-type incentive increases influenza immunization rates.
In a prospective, single-blind factorial design randomized trial at an urban community health center, all high-risk patients (n = 797) seen in the preceding 18 months were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a control group; a group mailed a large print, illustrated educational brochure emphasizing factors important to patients in making a decision about influenza immunization; a group mailed a lottery-type incentive announcing that all patients receiving influenza immunization would be eligible for grocery gift certificates; and a group mailed both educational brochure and incentive. Immunization was free, available without an appointment, and recorded by a computerized tracking system.
The group mailed the brochure was more likely to be immunized than control (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45 to 3.61), as was the group mailed the incentive (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.68), but there was no difference between the group mailed both interventions and the control group. The effectiveness of the brochure was more striking for individuals who had not accepted immunization in the prior year (OR = 4.21, 95% CI 2.48 to 7.14), suggesting a true educational effect rather than simply a reminder.
In this community health center setting, an illustrated educational brochure increased influenza immunization among high-risk patients, a lottery-type incentive was much less effective, and both together was not effective.
确定一份教育手册或抽奖式激励措施是否能提高流感疫苗接种率。
在一家城市社区健康中心进行的一项前瞻性、单盲析因设计随机试验中,将此前18个月内就诊的所有高危患者(n = 797)随机分为四组:对照组;邮寄一份大字印刷、配有插图的教育手册的组,该手册强调了对患者决定是否接种流感疫苗重要的因素;邮寄一份抽奖式激励措施的组,宣布所有接种流感疫苗的患者都有资格获得食品杂货店礼品券;以及同时邮寄教育手册和激励措施的组。疫苗接种是免费的,无需预约即可进行,并由计算机跟踪系统记录。
邮寄手册的组比对照组更有可能接种疫苗(优势比[OR] = 2.29,95%置信区间[CI] 1.45至3.61),邮寄激励措施的组也是如此(OR = 1.68,95% CI 1.05至2.68),但同时接受两种干预措施的组与对照组之间没有差异。对于前一年未接受疫苗接种的个体,手册的效果更为显著(OR = 4.21,95% CI 2.48至7.14),这表明是真正的教育效果而非仅仅是提醒。
在这个社区健康中心环境中,一份配有插图的教育手册提高了高危患者的流感疫苗接种率,抽奖式激励措施效果要差得多,两者同时使用则无效。