An interventional study of Brief Intervention for Influenza vaccine and Normal advice in Influenza Vaccination and Health Education, sponsored by Fundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i Gurina. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-09-29.
Sponsored by Fundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i Gurina · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Influenza virus has high morbidity rates during annual epidemics, with certain high-risk groups being particularly susceptible to complications and mortality. Vaccination is the main prevention measure, alongside with hygiene measures. Nevertheless, vaccine coverage remains low.
Some studies suggest that short, standardized interventions can improve coverage of several vaccines.
Hypothesis: Brief Intervention is an effective tool in improving vaccination coverage in people who have initially rejected it.
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a Brief Intervention in increasing influenza vaccination (IIV) coverage compared with the usual advice in people who refuse it.
Method: cluster randomized clinical trial. The study population was individuals with high risk factors who initially refused the influenza vaccine. Professionals participants (doctors and nurses) were assigned randomly to the intervention group (brief intervention) and the control group (usual advice).
General objective: To determine the effectiveness of the use of BI for IIV compared to the usual advice, in people who refuse to be vaccinated.
Specific objectives:
METHOD A cluster randomized controlled clinical trial. The reference population consisted of patients assigned to and treated by urban and rural health centres in the centre of Catalonia, an area with a population of approximately 405,000. 135,648 were the risk factor population that could be vaccinated against influenza virus.
The study population consisted of individuals with high risk factors who were treated in healthcare centres during the 2017 influenza campaign.
The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEI) of the Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol).
The participants (doctors and nurses) decided voluntarily whether or not to participate and they were randomly assigned to either the Intervention Group (IG) or the Control Group (CG).
The recruitment of patients suitable to participate in the study was carried out during the IIV campaign, as part of the health centre's routine activities. Patients with inclusion criteria who came to see a doctor or nurse were invited to participate in the study. Those who accepted participating signed an informed consent.
The intervention consisted of a standardized Brief Intervention for the Influenza Vaccination.
Data was collected anonymously and confidentially via the electronic health record of Catalonia [eCAP in Catalan]. The variables analysed for the two groups were: IIV at the end of the 2017 vaccination campaign (yes/no), age, IIV risk factors and reasons for non-vaccination.
2,214 studies on the registry are indexed under Influenza, Human; 164 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 524 is above the median of 238 across 1,853 interventional studies indexed under Influenza, Human.
Browse Influenza, Human studies →Fundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i Gurina is the lead sponsor of 158 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Intervention consisted of a standardized Brief Intervention, which varied depending on the reason the patient had given for refusing the vaccination.
Behavioral: Brief Intervention for Influenza vaccine
the control group intervention was the normal advice that professionals used to give their patients
Behavioral: Normal advice
Previous to the intervention, patients were asked about the reasons to reject the influenza vaccine. Brief Intervention was performed by the healthcare professional during the consultation. It was given verbally, with written support.
In the CG the influenza vaccine advice was the normal advice that professionals used to give their patients and was not asked for the reasons for the rejection of the vaccine to prevent them from influencing the advice.
Influenza vaccination status at the end of the Influenza vaccination campaign 2017.
% of reluctant patients vaccinated against Influenza at the end of the campaign 2017. Measurement tool: Influenza vaccine registered in patient's medical history
Time frame: up to 3 months
Influenza vaccination status of the participants who received the Brief Intervention or the normal advice.
% of reluctant patients vaccinated against Influenza in the Intervention group or in the Control group. Measurement tool: Influenza vaccine registered in patient's medical history
Time frame: up to 3 months
Reasons for rejecting Influenza Vaccination
% of the different reasons for rejecting Influenza Vaccination. Measurement tool: specific questionnaire.
Time frame: one day
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Fundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i Gurina