Improving Physician Vaccine Recommendation Using Social Norms, Trust, and Presumptive Language

Healthy Clinical Trial

Official title:

Improving Physician Vaccine Recommendation Using Social Norms, Trust, and Presumptive Language

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05957393
• Other study ID #: Pro00113696
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: September 21, 2023
• Est. completion date: April 24, 2024

Study information

• Verified date: October 2023
• Source: Duke University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This research examines vaccination recommendation perceptions and behaviors of physicians and advanced practice providers.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 447
• Est. completion date: April 24, 2024
• Est. primary completion date: April 24, 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Participants must be physicians, advanced practice providers, medical students, nurses/nurse practitioners, or medical fellows.

• Must be in a position to be authorized to recommend vaccines to patients in their official professional capacities/responsibilities.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Students or employees under the supervision of the PI who meet inclusion criteria for the study

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Healthy

Intervention

Other:
• Quantity of vaccination recommendations
The survey contains a messaging intervention using a 2x2 randomized factorial design, where the investigators attempt to increase the quantity and/or quality of physician and APP vaccination recommendations (Quantity (present vs. absent) x Quality (present vs. absent)).
• Quality of vaccination recommendations
The survey contains a messaging intervention using a 2x2 randomized factorial design, where the investigators attempt to increase the quantity and/or quality of physician and APP vaccination recommendations (Quantity (present vs. absent) x Quality (present vs. absent)).
• Control
The survey contains a messaging intervention using a 2x2 randomized factorial design, where the investigators attempt to increase the quantity and/or quality of physician and APP vaccination recommendations (Quantity (present vs. absent) x Quality (present vs. absent)).

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Brazil	(Any and all facilities) - Participants are recruited via market research company "Survey Healthcare Global"	Brasília
United States	(Any and all facilities) - The study team ask(s)/(ed) professional contacts, friends, and family members who are employed at various US Institutions to forward the recruitment announcement message via their respective networks	Durham	North Carolina
United States	Duke University Health System (all locations)	Durham	North Carolina

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Duke University

Countries where clinical trial is conducted

United States,  Brazil, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Change in proportion of patients that receive a vaccine recommendation	Proportion of patients that receive a vaccine recommendation = multiplication of the answer to the following two items: (1) "I (will) check(ed) whether a patient has/had gotten all indicated vaccines", (2) "If I saw/see a patient had not gotten an indicated vaccine, I (will) discuss(ed) getting it." Both items are answered on a scale from 0% (never) to 100% (always).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Primary	Change in self-reported responsibility perception	Self-reported responsibility perception = answer to the following item: (1) "Recommending indicated vaccines is within the scope of my professional responsibilities". This item is answered on a scale from 0% (completely disagree) to 100% (completely agree).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Primary	Change in self-reported assessment of patient recommendation acceptance	Self-reported assessment of patient recommendation acceptance = answer to the following item: (1) "If I recommend(ed) an indicated vaccine, my patient (will) accept(ed) that recommendation.". This item is answered on a scale from 0% (never) to 100% (always).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Primary	Change in self-reported patient trust	Self-reported patient trust = answer to the following item: (1) "Thinking about the last/next 30 days I provided care, I can say that my patients (will) trust(ed) me as their healthcare provider". This item is answered on a scale from 0% (completely disagree) to 100% (completely agree).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Primary	Change in self-reported utilization of AIMS	Composite score of the following items: (1) "I used/will use direct, declarative language, like: "You're due for your flu shot. We'll do that at the end of this visit"; (2) "If the patient showed/shows hesitancy about getting vaccinated, I (will) ask(ed) about their concerns, and then use(d) active listening to understand their thoughts"; (3) "If the patient showed/shows hesitancy about getting vaccinated, I (will) listen(ed) to the patient's reasoning and then summarize(d) the patient's reasoning back to them to show that I understood/understand"; (4) "If the patient still has concerns, I did/will not continue efforts to convince them."; Each item is answered on a scale from 0% (never) to 100% (always).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Primary	Change in self-reported rate of patient vaccine uptake	Answer to the following item: "Estimate what percentage of your patients is/will be fully vaccinated against […]" This item is answered on a scale from 0% to 100%.; The question is being asked 8-10 times with the following name inserted for [...] in the above question: Flu COVID-19 Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis HPV Hepatitis B Meningitis / Meningococcal Shingles Pneumococcal Other (which can be two other diseases that the respondent indicated)	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Secondary	Change in belief about patient autonomy	Answer to the following item: "I stated / will state the patient's options - to vaccinate or not, and with which vaccine - so that they can make an informed decision." This item is answered on a scale from 0% to 100%.	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90
Secondary	Change in proportion of patients that accept a recommendation	Proportion of patients that accept a recommendation = multiplication of the answer to the following three items: (1) "I (will) check(ed) whether a patient has/had gotten all indicated vaccines", (2) "If I saw/see a patient had not gotten an indicated vaccine, I (will) discuss(ed) getting it."; (3) "If I recommend(ed) an indicated vaccine, my patient (will) accept(ed) that recommendation." All items are answered on a scale from 0% (never) to 100% (always).	Day 1, Day 30, Day 60, Day 90