An interventional study of Phase 1: standardized nudge messages and Phase 1: personalized nudge messages + chatbot in Influenza Vaccine and Healthcare Workers, sponsored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-09-11.
Sponsored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if nudge-based interventions and motivational interviewing work to improve influenza vaccination uptake among healthcare workers in China. A two-phase randomized controlled trial will be conducted in community hospitals across China, targeting healthcare workers as participants.
The main questions are:
Do nudge-based interventions increase vaccination rates among healthcare workers?
Does motivational interviewing increase vaccination compliance among those who remain unvaccinated after the phase 1?
In phase 1, community hospitals will be randomized as units into three arms: standard nudge group, personalized nudge group, and a control group. In phase 2, healthcare workers who remain unvaccinated after phase 1 will be individually randomized to either a motivational interviewing group or a control group.
Participants will:
Be recruited from community hospitals to participate in the study. In phase 1 (at the early stage of the flu season), community hospitals will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: standardized nudge messages, personalized nudge messages with a chatbot, or no reminders.
If still unvaccinated in phase 2 (during peak flu season), healthcare workers will be individually assigned to either motivational interviewing group or receive no extra contact.
Have their vaccination status checked at the end of each phase.
A two-phase randomized controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of multi-component interventions to improve vaccination uptake, targeting healthcare workers in China.
Sample size Phase 1: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial The sample size is determined to identify a significant difference in the primary outcome, defined as the influenza vaccination uptake among healthcare workers in community hospital, comparing the intervention and control groups. Historical surveillance data from the three participating cities indicate a baseline vaccination rate of approximately 4% without targeted interventions. The proposed intervention is expected to increase this rate to 10%. A two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 is set, adjusted to α = 0.0167 via Bonferroni correction to account for three planned pairwise comparisons. Statistical power is set at 0.80, with an assumed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.05 and an average cluster size of 50 participants per cluster. Based on these parameters, 23 clusters per study arm are required, resulting in a total of 69 clusters across the three arms. To account for potential attrition, the sample size will be increased to 27 clusters per arm, yielding a total of 81 clusters and an estimated 4,050 participants. All eligible healthcare workers in the participating community hospitals will be included in the study.
Phase 2: Individual Randomized Controlled Trial In phase 2, the target population comprises healthcare workers who remain unvaccinated after Phase 1, from the 54 community hospitals assigned to the intervention arms. Without further intervention, the vaccination uptake rate in this group is estimated to be approximately 3%. The motivational interviewing intervention is expected to increase this rate to 13%. Assuming a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 and statistical power of 0.80, sample size estimation indicates a minimum of 112 participants per group is required. To ensure feasibility and maintain study power, the motivational interviewing group will aim to enroll 150 participants. Fifteen community hospitals will be randomly selected from the two intervention arms of Phase 1. Control groups are established: 1) healthcare workers from 15 community hospitals selected for the motivational interviewing intervention, excluding approximately 10 individuals per community hospital who receive the intervention, resulting in a control group of approximately 525 healthcare workers; and 2) healthcare workers from the remaining 39 community hospitals not participating in the motivational interviewing intervention, comprising approximately 1,755 individuals. Therefore, the control group in phase 2 comprises approximately 2,280 participants.
In phase 1, a stratified block randomization method will be employed to ensure balanced allocation across study groups. Stratification factors include historical influenza vaccination rates among healthcare workers and the size of the healthcare staff at each community hospital. Community hospitals with comparable levels of these factors are grouped into blocks within each city and then randomly assigned within each block to one of three groups: the standardized nudge group, personalized nudge group, or a control group.
In phase 2, a two-stage random sampling procedure will be used. Specifically, 15 community hospitals will be randomly selected from the 54 hospitals assigned to the intervention groups in the phase 1 (five hospitals per province). Within each selected hospital, 10 healthcare workers who remained unvaccinated after the first-phase intervention will be randomly sampled and enrolled in the individual-level intervention study.
Qualitative interviews and a baseline survey will be conducted before the interventions. Follow-up questionnaires will be completed two weeks after the end of each intervention phase. The primary outcome is the receipt of influenza vaccination by healthcare workers, which will be assessed two months after each intervention phase using official vaccination records.
The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. The primary outcome is influenza vaccine uptake among healthcare workers post-intervention. Vaccine uptake will be compared between intervention and control groups, and across intervention arms, using chi-square tests. To account for clustering and adjust for potential confounders, generalized estimating equation (GEE) models will be employed to provide robust effect estimates. Timing of vaccination will be evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests, with Cox proportional hazards models to estimate intervention effects on time-to-vaccination. Subgroup analyses will assess heterogeneity of intervention effects across populations stratified by baseline characteristics.
Secondary outcomes will be evaluated at baseline and post-intervention. Between-group comparisons, including intervention versus control and across intervention arms, will use t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. GEE models with repeated measures will assess intervention effects on secondary outcomes, adjusting for relevant covariates. Subgroup analyses will examine differential effects across subpopulations defined by baseline factors.
2,358 studies on the registry are indexed under Influenza, Human; 185 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 4,050 is above the median of 227 across 1,957 interventional studies indexed under Influenza, Human.
Browse Influenza, Human studies →Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China is the lead sponsor of 22 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Phase 1: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Phase 2: Individual Randomized Controlled Trial
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
- Participants who refuse to participate or do not provide informed consent .
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants receive uniform nudge messages.
Behavioral: Phase 1: standardized nudge messages
Participants receive tailored nudge messages with access to a chatbot.
Behavioral: Phase 1: personalized nudge messages + chatbot
Participants receive no study-related interventions.
Participants receive motivational interviewing.
Behavioral: Phase 2: motivational Interviewing
Participants receive no study-related interventions.
Participants receive uniform messages designed to encourage influenza vaccination. These messages, grounded in nudge theory, are delivered through a Chinese online platform to promote vaccination uptake.
Participants receive tailored messages designed to encourage influenza vaccination. These messages, grounded in nudge theory, are delivered through a Chinese online platform to promote vaccination uptake. Additionally, they have access to an interactive chatbot to address questions and provide decision-making support for influenza vaccination.
Unvaccinated participants engage in one-on-one motivational interviewing sessions with a trained interviewer.
Influenza vaccination uptake
whether participants get vaccinated against influenza, measured by official vaccination system
Time frame: 2 months post-intervention for each study phase.
Influenza vaccine literacy
A series of questions about influenza vaccine knowledge and misinformation. Total literacy score is calculated based on the number of questions answered correctly by the participants.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Influenza vaccine confidence
Vaccine confidence index (VCI), including participants' confidence in the importance, effectiveness, and safety of the influenza vaccine, and trust in public health agency. Responses will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
High perception on influenza risk
Proportion of participants who perceived to be susceptible and severe to influenza.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Influenza vaccination intention
Participants' intention to receive influenza vaccine. Unit of Measure: Influenza Vaccination Intention 5-point Likert scale score, 1-5 (higher scores indicate stronger intention).
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Recommendation of influenza vaccine to the public.
Recommendation frequency of influenza vaccine to the public during the health care. Unit of Measure:Recommendation frequency score, 1-5 (higher scores indicate more frequent recommendations).
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Access to professional information of influenza vaccine
Whether professional information about influenza vaccine is provided in the workplace.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Intervention usability assessment
A series of questions assessing usability and feasibility of the interventions.
Time frame: 2 weeks after each intervention phase.
Cost of interventions
The cost of designing and implementing interventions. Unit of Measure: Chinese Yuan (CNY).
Time frame: Immediately after the completion of each intervention phase.
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: No — Individual participant data will not be shared due to participant privacy concerns and institutional data protection policies.
Start is estimated for Sep 2025; primary completion for Mar 2026, 6 months later.
Of 146 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Influenza, Human, half reached primary completion within 7 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 3 and three quarters within 18. This study's planned 6 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 166 studies reached it within 6 months; a quarter within 3 and three quarters within 16.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2025. 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.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, China