Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1
Study flow diagram.
- FIGURE 2
Kaplan–Meier analyses of time from receipt of first influenza vaccine dose to receipt of second influenza vaccine dose. The x-axis represents time in days since receipt of the first influenza vaccine dose until receipt of second influenza vaccine dose. The y-axis represents the cumulative proportion of children vaccinated. End date is April 30, 2013.
Tables
Total Written Reminder, n = 219 Conventional Text Message, n = 225 Educational Text Message, n = 216 P Age .91 6–23 mo 484 (73.3) 161 (73.5) 163 (72.4) 160 (74.1) 24–59 mo 66 (10.0) 21 (9.6) 26 (11.6) 19 (8.8) 5–8 y 110 (16.7) 37 (16.9) 36 (16.0) 37 (17.1) Gender .66 Girl 327 (49.5) 114 (52.1) 108 (48.0) 105 (48.6) Boy 333 (50.5) 105 (47.9) 117 (52.0) 111 (51.4) Race/ethnicity .57 Latino 586 (88.8) 199 (90.9) 201 (89.3) 186 (86.1) African American 58 (8.8) 14 (6.4) 19 (8.4) 25 (11.6) White 2 (0.3) 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (0.5) Other 14 (2.1) 5 (2.3) 5 (2.2) 4 (1.9) Language most comfortable speaking with health care provider .47 Spanish 341 (51.7) 121 (55.3) 112 (49.8) 108 (50.0) English 318 (48.2) 98 (44.7) 112 (49.8) 108 (50.0) Other 1 (0.2) 0 (0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0) Insurance .15 Medicaid/State Children’s Health Insurance Program 638 (96.7) 208 (95.0) 219 (97.3) 211 (97.7) Commercial 14 (2.1) 7 (3.2) 2 (0.9) 5 (2.3) Uninsured 8 (1.2) 4 (1.8) 4 (1.8) 0 (0) Education .56 < High school 110 (16.7) 33 (15.1) 38 (16.9) 39 (18.1) High school 230 (34.8) 83 (37.9) 70 (31.1) 77 (35.6) At least some college 320 (48.5) 103 (47.0) 117 (52.0) 100 (46.3) Text message plan type .65 Unlimited plan 583 (88.3) 190 (86.8) 200 (88.9) 193 (89.4) Limited plan 74 (11.2) 27 (12.3) 24 (10.7) 23 (10.6) Did not know 3 (0.5) 2 (0.9) 1 (0.4) 0 (0) Text message frequency .18 At least weekly 609 (92.3) 207 (94.5) 201 (89.3) 201 (93.1) Less often than weekly 39 (5.9) 11 (5.0) 17 (7.6) 11 (5.1) Never 12 (1.8) 1 (0.5) 7 (3.1) 4 (1.9) S-TOFHLAa .99 Adequate 434 (85.9) 140 (86.4) 149 (85.6) 145 (85.8) Marginal 27 (5.3) 8 (4.9) 10 (5.7) 9 (5.3) Inadequate 44 (8.7) 14 (8.6) 15 (8.6) 15 (8.9) Data are presented as n (%).
↵a Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) not available on all participants because of family’s time availability at enrollment.
- TABLE 2
Receipt of Second Dose Influenza Vaccine by April 30, 2013, and by Day 42 Post Vaccination
% Receipt Second Dose Difference Versus Written Text Message Reminder Difference Versus Conventional Text Message Reminder Absolute Difference, % (95% CI) RR (95% CI) Absolute Difference, % (95% CI) RR (95% CI) Receipt by April 30 Primary analytic sample Educational text message (n = 216) 72.7% (157) P = .003 15.6% (15.1–16.1) 1.27 (1.11–1.47) 6.0% (5.6–6.5) 1.09 (0.96–1.23) Conventional text message (n = 225) 66.7% (150) 9.6% (9.1–10.0) 1.17 (1.01–1.35) — — Written reminder only (n = 219) 57.1% (125) — — — — Receipt by day 42 post vaccination Primary analytic sample Educational text message (n = 216) 43.5% (94) P < .001 17.9% (17.5–18.4) 1.70 (1.30–2.24) 9.6% (9.1–10.0) 1.28 (1.01–1.63) Conventional text message (n = 224) 33.9% (76) 8.4% (7.9–8.8) 1.33 (0.99–1.77) — — Written reminder only (n = 219) 25.6% (56) — — — — Receipt by day 42 does not include participant who received the second dose too early and was not revaccinated. CI, 95% confidence interval; RR, relative rate.
- TABLE 3
Impact of Intervention Based on Enrollment Date: Receipt of Second Dose Influenza Vaccine by April 30, 2013, and by Day 42 Post Vaccination
% Receipt Second Dose Difference Versus Written Text Message Reminder Difference Versus Conventional Text Message Reminder Absolute Difference, % (95% CI) RR (95% CI) Absolute Difference, % (95% CI) RR (95% CI) Receipt by April 30 Receipt of first dose before November 15 Educational text message (n = 111) 89.2% (99) P = .034 12.6% (11.7–13.5) 1.17 (1.03–1.32) 10.6% (9.7–11.4) 1.13 (1.01–1.27) Conventional text message (n = 117) 78.6% (92) 2.1% (1.2–2.9) 1.03 (0.89–1.18) — — Written reminder only (n = 111) 76.6% (85) — — — — Receipt of first dose after or on November 15 Educational text message (n = 105) 55.2% (58) P = .013 18.2% (17.3–19.1) 1.49 (1.11–2.01) 1.5% (0.6%–2.5%) 1.03 (0.81–1.32) Conventional text message (n = 108) 53.7% (58) 16.7% (15.7–17.6) 1.45 (1.07–1.96) — — Written reminder only (n = 108) 37.0% (40) — — — — Receipt by day 42 post vaccination Receipt of first dose before November 15 Educational text message (n = 111) 49.5% (55) P = .004 20.7% (19.8–21.6) 1.72 (1.21–2.43) 15.1% (14.2–15.9) 1.44 (1.05–1.97) Conventional text message (n = 116) 34.5% (40) 5.7% (4.8–6.5) 1.20 (0.81–1.76) — — Written reminder only (n = 111) 28.8% (32) — — — — Receipt of first dose after or on November 15 Educational text message (n = 105) 37.1% (39) P = .049 14.9% (14.0–15.9) 1.67 (1.09–2.57) 3.8% (2.9–4.7) 1.11 (0.77–1.61) Conventional text message (n = 108) 33.3% (36) 11.1% (10.2–12.0) 1.50 (0.96–2.33) — — Written reminder only (n = 108) 22.2% (24) — — — — Receipt by day 42 does not include participant who received the second dose too early and was not revaccinated. CI, 95% confidence interval; RR, relative rate.
Data Supplement
Files in this Data Supplement:
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to prompt front-line staff to take up the seasonal influenza vaccine
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Text Message Reminders for Increasing Influenza Vaccination
- Interventions to reduce inequalities in vaccine uptake in children and adolescents aged <19 years: a systematic review