Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The study aims to evaluate whether evidence-based fact boxes on COVID-19 and influenza vaccination contribute to the decision making of laypeople from different social backgrounds in different educational settings (e.g. medical practices, outreach work). Furthermore, the study will investigate whether evidence-based fact boxes can contribute to more equitable health care by improving shared decision-making.
Full description
Background
Evidence-based health information (EBHI) and decision aids (DA) are key components for improving health care by enabling more people to make informed decisions. However, despite their overall effectiveness, there is a risk that only certain groups of the population will benefit from them. Because although they are target group oriented, the factors that lead to inequality in terms of shared and informed decision-making have not yet been sufficiently taken into account in their development process. For example, there are many patient-oriented materials written at an advanced level, which makes the materials less accessible to people with reading difficulties, lower education, health literacy or socioeconomic status (SES).
Evidence-based fact boxes have been shown to support informed decision-making. However, few studies have analysed how the boxes support decision-making in different social groups. Further, it is unclear whether fact boxes promote informed and shared decision making equally when implemented by health educators (HE) in different settings. Hence, there is a risk that fact boxes will only help less disadvantaged people to make informed health decisions.
Objective
In a Multi-center, cluster-randomised, cross-sectional study, the effectiveness of evidence-based fact boxes (intervention) compared with usual health education/care (control) on outcomes relevant to the decision to vaccinate will be investigated in people from different backgrounds in Germany.
Fact boxes on COVID-19 and influenza vaccination have been adapted in several steps to meet the information needs and requirements of the population. This included feedback from various public health stakeholders on a COVID-19 fact box implemented in Germany in January 2021 by a national Public Health institute, the identification of information needs and requirements of the population in Germany based on secondary data analyses, and testing of COVID-19 fact boxes in pre-studies in population-wide surveys with N=1,942 to N=6,056 respondents in Germany. The data basis and individual studies have been described in detail elsewhere.
The Influenza vaccination fact box was updated in 2021 based on current evidence and is available on the Harding Center website for older people (65 years and older) and for people aged 16 to 65. During cognitive interviews, simplified COVID-19 and Influenza vaccination fact boxes were first piloted with German-speaking laypeople and adapted based on their feedback. Visualized COVID-19 fact boxes were also piloted with Arabic-, Turkish- and Russian-speaking laypeople from disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Berlin. A visualized flu fact box is currently being piloted by the University of Erfurt with German-speaking lay people.
Main research question
Do disadvantaged people benefit to the same extent as non-disadvantaged people in terms of informed and shared decision-making from receiving COVID-19 and influenza vaccination fact boxes as opposed to standard vaccination communication in medical practices and outreach work (field settings)?
Research questions (RQ) and main hypotheses (HYP)
RQ1 Is the use of fact boxes more effective than standard vaccine communication (control condition) in the field?
Primary HYP
Secondary HYP
RQ2 Are fact boxes as effective for people with disadvantaging factors as for those without factors associated with disadvantages?
Primary HYP
Compared to standard vaccine communication, fact boxes will lead to a greater alignment of knowledge, informed vaccination intentions, and accuracy of risk perception between:
RQ3 Does the use of fact boxes in outreach work promote more shared and informed decision-making than in regular health care settings?
HYP
a) Compared to standard vaccine communication fact boxes will more likely lead to more informed vaccination intentions and shared decisions in outreach work than in regular health care settings.
Explorative analyses
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
800 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Christin Ellermann, MSc; Felix G. Rebitschek, Dr.
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal