Flu, HumanNCT04160975
Persuasion in Medicine: Experimental Evidence on Sender and Signal Effects
A study testing Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination in people with Flu, Human and Influenza, Human, run by Harvard University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The aim of the study is to identify what sender/signal combinations are most persuasive in encouraging low socioeconomic males living in the U.S. to take-up seasonal flu vaccination. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 51 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Flu, Human, Influenza, Human, Covid19
- What is being tested?
- Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 3,245 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 20 Dec 2019to 19 Feb 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 51 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Age: See above.
- Education: Less than a college degree.
- Gender: Male.
- Race: Caucasian or African American.
- Miscellaneous: Has not received the flu shot in the current flu season yet.
- Miscellaneous: Has sound on his device turned on.
Who cannot join
- Fast survey-taking: subjects who are among the 5% fastest in terms of total time spent on survey within race and treatment group.
- Nonsense answers (those that do not have decipherable English) in the open text sections that suggest low effort.
- Inconsistent responses to questions (such as being willing to give up $10 to receive a flu coupon but not $1).
- Repeat survey takers as indicated by duplicate emails or IP addresses in survey data.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The aim of the study is to identify what sender/signal combinations are most persuasive in encouraging low socioeconomic males living in the U.S. to take-up seasonal flu vaccination. The investigators plan to recruit male subjects and randomly assign them to four persuasion treatments: three of which vary dimensions of the sender of a medical recommendation (racial concordance and authority treatments) and one which varies the signal (standard vs. empathetic). Specifically, the investigators will show subjects videos of either Black or white actors/actresses providing scripted information on the flu vaccination. The investigators will randomize the race of the sender and if the subject is Black, also randomize the authority of the sender, with the actor portraying either a doctor or a layperson. In addition, the investigators will vary the script used in the experiment between one that acknowledges past injustices (indicated as an empathetic script hereafter) and one that does not (indicated as a standard script hereafter). The investigators will provide subjects a free flu shot coupon and elicit the price at which subjects would be willing to give up this coupon for a cash reward. Lastly, in light of the relevance of vaccination take-up in combating COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators will assess demand for information about a COVID-19 vaccine, with subjects invited to receive results of a safety and efficacy review from a trusted or standard source. The design requires the collection of baseline and endline surveys combined with administrative data from pharmacies about coupon redemption. The primary outcomes of interest are posterior beliefs about seasonal flu vaccination, demand and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a free flu shot coupon, redemption of the coupon, and demand for information about a COVID-19 vaccine.
Read the detailed description
The investigators will recruit approximately 3350 African-American or Caucasian adult males with a high-school diploma or less. A pilot study, which ran during the 2019-20 flu season, recruited approximately 850 subjects, and a planned scale-up will recruit an additional 2500 subjects during the 2020-21 flu season. The investigators will oversample African American individuals, emphasizing low-income and minority men because these characteristics are correlated with lower relative take-up of flu vaccination. After informed consent is obtained, subjects will be asked about sociodemographic information (age, education, income and marital status), healthcare experience and past medical history, knowledge and beliefs about flu vaccination, and location of the nearest pharmacy. The investigators will then randomly assign the adult male subjects to videos which contain one of Black or white actors playing the role of either a doctor or a layperson as well as different scripts. The content of the infomercial will be the safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination. After the video, the investigators will obtain information on beliefs regarding vaccination, feedback on the video, attention to the video and willingness-to-pay for a flu shot coupon. The final baseline module will consist of a randomly assigned invitation to receive the results of an upcoming review of a COVID-19 vaccine, with subjects assigned to receive information from a trusted or standard source. The investigators will track flu coupon redemption, which is redeemable at most pharmacies nationwide.
- Conditions
- Flu, Human, Influenza, Human, Covid19
- Being tested
- Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination
- Keywords
- Belief Updating, Preventive Care, Racial Disparity
- Medical subject headings
- Influenza, Human, COVID-19
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationBehavioural
The investigators will show subjects videos of either Black or white male actors providing scripted information on the flu vaccination. The content of the video will be the safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination. The videos contain one of Black or white actors playing the role of either a doctor or a layperson as well as different scripts.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Black R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially concordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
| Black R/Race C/Layperson/Standard Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially concordant actor playing a layperson and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
| Black R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
| Black R/Race D/Doctor/Acknowledgement Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading an acknowledgement script. The receiver of the message will be Black. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
| White R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially concordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be White. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
| White R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Video which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be White. Receives: Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Rating of Sender
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions regarding:
- whether the respondent was interested in further medical advice from the given sender (measured as a binary outcome);
- whether the respondent trusted advice from the sender measured on a scale of 1 to 5;
- and whether the respondent's assessment of the sender's qualification to provide medical advice measured on a scale of 1 to 5.
It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. Scores less than 0 indicate lower ratings of the sender rated by participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the rating rated by participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate higher ratings of the sender by Arm A compared to by Arm B. For example, an index score of .18 indicates that participants in Arm A rate the sender 0.18 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
Rating of Signal
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions on:
- recommending the video to friends and family measured on a scale of 0 to 10;
- recommending the flu shot to friends and family measured on a scale of 0 to 10;
- and the respondent's assessment of the extent to which the information contained in the video was useful measured on a scale of 1 to 5.
It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate lower ratings of the signal rated by participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the rating rated by participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate higher ratings of the signal by Arm A compared to by Arm B. For example, an index score of 0.14 indicates that participants in Arm A rate the signal 0.14 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
Signal Content Recall
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions on:
- whether age group for whom the flu vaccine is recommended (measured as a binary outcome); and
- whether the flu shot contains the flu virus (recall of information discussed in the video) (measured as a binary outcome).
It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate lower level of recalling signal content among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of recalling signal content among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of 0.02 indicates that participants in Arm A recall signal content 0.02 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome will be assessed during Baseline survey, which takes approximately 20 minutes.
Safety Beliefs
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of:
- the point belief on the likelihood to contract the flu from the flu shot measured by a Likert scale and rescaled to have a support of -1 to 1.
- the certainty measured with a balls and bins method and rescaled to have a support of -1 to 1.
It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate a lower level of beliefs in the safety of flu vaccine among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of beliefs among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of -0.1 indicates that participants in Arm A hold such beliefs 0.1 index (in standard deviation units) lower than those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome will be assessed during Baseline survey, which takes approximately 20 minutes.
Coupon Interest
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of revealed preference measures of demand for a free flu shot coupon:
- Willingness to pay (WTP) for the coupon measured as $0, $1, $2, $5, or $10
- demand for information regarding locations to redeem the coupon measured as a binary outcome
It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate a lower level of interest in a free flu shot coupon distributed after survey completion among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of interest among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of -0.01 indicates that participants in Arm A hold such interest -0.01 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
(Posterior) Flu Vaccine Intent
This is the respondent's likelihood to receive the flu vaccine before the end of the flu season. This was elicited on an 11-point Likert scale (0 extremely unwilling, 10 extremely willing) after the video message treatment. We re-scaled this outcome to have a scale of 0 to 1. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, an intent of 0.03 indicates that participants in Arm A are 0.03 units on a scale more likely to intent to take up the flu vaccine compared to those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed after the video treatment during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
COVID-19 Vaccine Intent
This is the respondent's likelihood to take up the COVID-19 vaccine if made available free of charge. This was elicited on an 11-point Likert scale (0 extremely unwilling, 10 extremely willing) after the video message treatment. We re-scaled this outcome to have a scale of 0 to 1. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, an intent of 0.04 indicates that participants in Arm A are 0.04 units on a scale more likely to intent to take up the COVID-19 vaccine compared to those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed after the video treatment during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
Flu Vaccine Take-up
This is respondents' self-report in the follow-up survey on whether they or their family members had received the flu shot or redeemed the coupon since the intervention. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, 15.0 percentage points indicate that participants in Arm A are more likely to report that they and/or another household member received the flu vaccine by 15.p percentage points compared to those in Arm B.
Measured: This outcome was assessed during the follow-up survey which was conducted at least two weeks after the initial baseline survey.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Nov 2019
- Study start20 Dec 2019
- Primary completion19 Feb 2021
- Study completion19 Feb 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Flu, HumanStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider
- Enrolment
- 3,245 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Ludwig-Maximilians - University of Munich, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Marcella Alsan, Harvard University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04160975
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB19-1424
- Status last verified
- Jun 2021
- First submitted
- 8 Nov 2019
- Last updated
- 29 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Persuasion in Medicine: Experimental Evidence on Sender and Signal Effects
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04160975
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB19-1424
- Conditions
- Flu, Human, Influenza, Human, Covid19
- Keywords
- Belief Updating, Preventive Care, Racial Disparity
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 3,245 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Harvard UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Ludwig-Maximilians - University of Munich, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Study start
- 20 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 19 Feb 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 19 Feb 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 29 Jun 2021
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of the study is to identify what sender/signal combinations are most persuasive in encouraging low socioeconomic males living in the U.S. to take-up seasonal flu vaccination. The investigators plan to recruit male subjects and randomly assign them to four persuasion treatments: three of which vary dimensions of the sender of a medical recommendation (racial concordance and authority treatments) and one which varies the signal (standard vs. empathetic). Specifically, the investigators will show subjects videos of either Black or white actors/actresses providing scripted information on the flu vaccination. The investigators will randomize the race of the sender and if the subject is Black, also randomize the authority of the sender, with the actor portraying either a doctor or a layperson. In addition, the investigators will vary the script used in the experiment between one that acknowledges past injustices (indicated as an empathetic script hereafter) and one that does not (indicated as a standard script hereafter). The investigators will provide subjects a free flu shot coupon and elicit the price at which subjects would be willing to give up this coupon for a cash reward. Lastly, in light of the relevance of vaccination take-up in combating COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators will assess demand for information about a COVID-19 vaccine, with subjects invited to receive results of a safety and efficacy review from a trusted or standard source. The design requires the collection of baseline and endline surveys combined with administrative data from pharmacies about coupon redemption. The primary outcomes of interest are posterior beliefs about seasonal flu vaccination, demand and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a free flu shot coupon, redemption of the coupon, and demand for information about a COVID-19 vaccine.
Detailed description
The investigators will recruit approximately 3350 African-American or Caucasian adult males with a high-school diploma or less. A pilot study, which ran during the 2019-20 flu season, recruited approximately 850 subjects, and a planned scale-up will recruit an additional 2500 subjects during the 2020-21 flu season. The investigators will oversample African American individuals, emphasizing low-income and minority men because these characteristics are correlated with lower relative take-up of flu vaccination. After informed consent is obtained, subjects will be asked about sociodemographic information (age, education, income and marital status), healthcare experience and past medical history, knowledge and beliefs about flu vaccination, and location of the nearest pharmacy. The investigators will then randomly assign the adult male subjects to videos which contain one of Black or white actors playing the role of either a doctor or a layperson as well as different scripts. The content of the infomercial will be the safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination. After the video, the investigators will obtain information on beliefs regarding vaccination, feedback on the video, attention to the video and willingness-to-pay for a flu shot coupon. The final baseline module will consist of a randomly assigned invitation to receive the results of an upcoming review of a COVID-19 vaccine, with subjects assigned to receive information from a trusted or standard source. The investigators will track flu coupon redemption, which is redeemable at most pharmacies nationwide.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, care provider)
- Number of arms
- 6
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Black R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially concordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. |
| Black R/Race C/Layperson/Standard Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially concordant actor playing a layperson and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. |
| Black R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be Black. |
| Black R/Race D/Doctor/Acknowledgement Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading an acknowledgement script. The receiver of the message will be Black. |
| White R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially concordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be White. |
| White R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script | Experimental | Behavioral: Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationVideo which contains a racially discordant actor playing a doctor and reading a standard script. The receiver of the message will be White. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 51 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age: See above.
- Education: Less than a college degree.
- Gender: Male.
- Race: Caucasian or African American.
- Miscellaneous: Has not received the flu shot in the current flu season yet.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Fast survey-taking: subjects who are among the 5% fastest in terms of total time spent on survey within race and treatment group.
- Nonsense answers (those that do not have decipherable English) in the open text sections that suggest low effort.
- Inconsistent responses to questions (such as being willing to give up $10 to receive a flu coupon but not $1).
- Repeat survey takers as indicated by duplicate emails or IP addresses in survey data.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccinationThe investigators will show subjects videos of either Black or white male actors providing scripted information on the flu vaccination. The content of the video will be the safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination. The videos contain one of Black or white actors playing the role of either a doctor or a layperson as well as different scripts. | Behavioural | Black R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script, Black R/Race C/Layperson/Standard Script, Black R/Race D/Doctor/Acknowledgement Script, Black R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script, White R/Race C/Doctor/Standard Script, White R/Race D/Doctor/Standard Script |
Primary outcome
Rating of Sender
Time frame: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions regarding: 1. whether the respondent was interested in further medical advice from the given sender (measured as a binary outcome); 2. whether the respondent trusted advice from the sender measured on a scale of 1 to 5; 3. and whether the respondent's assessment of the sender's qualification to provide medical advice measured on a scale of 1 to 5. It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. Scores less than 0 indicate lower ratings of the sender rated by participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the rating rated by participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate higher ratings of the sender by Arm A compared to by Arm B. For example, an index score of .18 indicates that participants in Arm A rate the sender 0.18 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Rating of Signal
Time frame: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions on: 1. recommending the video to friends and family measured on a scale of 0 to 10; 2. recommending the flu shot to friends and family measured on a scale of 0 to 10; 3. and the respondent's assessment of the extent to which the information contained in the video was useful measured on a scale of 1 to 5. It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate lower ratings of the signal rated by participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the rating rated by participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate higher ratings of the signal by Arm A compared to by Arm B. For example, an index score of 0.14 indicates that participants in Arm A rate the signal 0.14 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Signal Content Recall
Time frame: This outcome will be assessed during Baseline survey, which takes approximately 20 minutes.
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of responses to survey questions on: 1. whether age group for whom the flu vaccine is recommended (measured as a binary outcome); and 2. whether the flu shot contains the flu virus (recall of information discussed in the video) (measured as a binary outcome). It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate lower level of recalling signal content among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of recalling signal content among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of 0.02 indicates that participants in Arm A recall signal content 0.02 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
Safety Beliefs
Time frame: This outcome will be assessed during Baseline survey, which takes approximately 20 minutes.
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of: 1. the point belief on the likelihood to contract the flu from the flu shot measured by a Likert scale and rescaled to have a support of -1 to 1. 2. the certainty measured with a balls and bins method and rescaled to have a support of -1 to 1. It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate a lower level of beliefs in the safety of flu vaccine among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of beliefs among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of -0.1 indicates that participants in Arm A hold such beliefs 0.1 index (in standard deviation units) lower than those in Arm B.
Coupon Interest
Time frame: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
This is an inverse-covariance-weighted index comprised of revealed preference measures of demand for a free flu shot coupon: 1. Willingness to pay (WTP) for the coupon measured as $0, $1, $2, $5, or $10 2. demand for information regarding locations to redeem the coupon measured as a binary outcome It is standardized to a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. An index score of 0 is equal to the mean. Scores less than 0 indicate a lower level of interest in a free flu shot coupon distributed after survey completion among participants in Arm A (described in each arm/group description) compared to the level among participants in Arm B (also described in each arm/group description). Scores greater than 0 indicate a higher level of interest among participants in Arm A compared to those in Arm B. For example, an index score of -0.01 indicates that participants in Arm A hold such interest -0.01 index (in standard deviation units) higher than those in Arm B.
(Posterior) Flu Vaccine Intent
Time frame: This outcome was assessed after the video treatment during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
This is the respondent's likelihood to receive the flu vaccine before the end of the flu season. This was elicited on an 11-point Likert scale (0 extremely unwilling, 10 extremely willing) after the video message treatment. We re-scaled this outcome to have a scale of 0 to 1. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, an intent of 0.03 indicates that participants in Arm A are 0.03 units on a scale more likely to intent to take up the flu vaccine compared to those in Arm B.
COVID-19 Vaccine Intent
Time frame: This outcome was assessed after the video treatment during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.
This is the respondent's likelihood to take up the COVID-19 vaccine if made available free of charge. This was elicited on an 11-point Likert scale (0 extremely unwilling, 10 extremely willing) after the video message treatment. We re-scaled this outcome to have a scale of 0 to 1. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, an intent of 0.04 indicates that participants in Arm A are 0.04 units on a scale more likely to intent to take up the COVID-19 vaccine compared to those in Arm B.
Flu Vaccine Take-up
Time frame: This outcome was assessed during the follow-up survey which was conducted at least two weeks after the initial baseline survey.
This is respondents' self-report in the follow-up survey on whether they or their family members had received the flu shot or redeemed the coupon since the intervention. The reported results of the outcome compare participants in Arm A and Arm B (described in each arm/group description). For example, 15.0 percentage points indicate that participants in Arm A are more likely to report that they and/or another household member received the flu vaccine by 15.p percentage points compared to those in Arm B.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jun 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Flu, Human
Enrolling by invitation
Personalized Ventilator Settings for Patients on ECMO
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
RecruitingPhase 2
BPL-1357 Against H1N1 Influenza Virus Challenge
Influenza, Human
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Safety and Immunogenicity of Chimeric Hemagglutinin mRNA Vaccine Candidates
Influenza
RecruitingPhase 1
pH1N1 Blinded Challenge Study
Influenza
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MK-1406/CD388 for Prevention of Influenza (MK-1406-005/CD388.SQ.3.06)
Influenza
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Video about safety and effectiveness of adult seasonal flu vaccination in people with Flu, Human and Influenza, Human, run by Harvard University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jun 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 29 Jun 2021). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Rating of Sender (time frame: This outcome was assessed during Baseline survey, which took approximately 20 minutes.). The study lists 8 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Jun 2021.