Do evidence-based fact boxes improve informed decision-making about COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in more and less disadvantaged groups equally? - Study protocol for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial in health and social care in Germany

Author:

Ellermann Christin1,Rebitschek Felix G.1

Affiliation:

1. Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam

Abstract

Abstract Background Evidence-based fact boxes have been shown to support informed decision-making. However, few studies have analysed how the boxes support decision-making in different social groups. Further, it is unclear whether fact boxes promote informed and shared decision making equally when implemented by health educators (HE) in different settings. Hence, there is a risk that fact boxes will only help less disadvantaged people to make informed health decisions. The aim of our study is to assess whether fact boxes can help people from different social groups make informed decisions about COVID-19 and influenza vaccination, and whether they contribute to reducing inequities in health care. Methods In a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial, HE from usual care (e.g. doctors) and outreach work (e.g. from social services) in Germany will be recruited. HE who are randomized to receive the intervention will receive a flyer with a QR code and a link to an online survey to pass on to those who are about to make a vaccination decision. The back of the flyer contains an evidence-based fact box about COVID-19 or the influenza vaccine, which can be used to inform. HE who are randomized to control will receive the flyer without the fact box. The flyer and online study will be available in Arabic, German, Turkish and Russian language. The primary outcome is informed vaccination intention, based on vaccination knowledge, attitudes, vaccination intentions and behaviour. Secondary outcomes include risk perception, decisional conflict and shared decision making. The statistical analysis plan includes the selection of appropriate measures of effect size, sample size calculation, and significance testing. Discussion Failing to consider inequalities when developing and evaluating interventions that influence health decisions - such as evidence-based health information - exacerbates health inequities. The aim of our study is to find out whether evidence-based fact boxes developed with an equity lens work well in different settings where health communication takes place. The results will help determine if and how fact boxes can be used to improve health care in and outside of traditional primary care structures, especially for disadvantaged groups, and will thus provide valuable insights into advancing health care equity. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06076421)

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference57 articles.

1. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects;Association WM;JAMA,2013

2. Informierte Entscheidung als patientenrelevanter Endpunkt;Rummer A;Dtsch Arztebl International,2016

3. A measure of informed choice;Marteau TM;Health Expect,2001

4. Bundestag D. Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten [Patients’ Rights Act]. Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2013 Teil I. 2013;2013:277 – 82.

5. Unter-, Über-und Fehlinformation im Gesundheitswesen;Mühlhauser I;GGW,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3