None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
Like many countries around the world, Australia is committed to vaccination as evidenced by programs and regulations at all levels of government. However, these initiatives have generally not drawn upon behavioural science to influence vaccination rates. The Gardasil quadrivalent 3-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which protects against genital warts and most cervical cancers, is provided in Victoria through a secondary school program, administered by local government (i.e., councils). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that sending an SMS reminder to parents/guardians who had consented to their child receiving the HPV vaccine would lead to greater HPV vaccine uptake within the council delivered school vaccination program. The secondary aim was to assess the effect of self-regulatory versus motivational message content in the SMS.
Interventions
Context: In Victoria, the HPV vaccine is delivered with the Secondary School Vaccine Program. In this program, local government (i.e., councils) visit each participating school three times across the year to offer each dose of the HPV vaccine. Council can also contact parents for the purpose of delivering the program. However, councils do not send reminders to parents about an upcoming school session. We assessed whether sending a Short-Message-Service (SMS) reminder would increase HPV vaccinati
Context: In Victoria, the HPV vaccine is delivered with the Secondary School Vaccine Program. In this program, local government (i.e., councils) visit each participating school three times across the year to offer each dose of the HPV vaccine. Council can also contact parents for the purpose of delivering the program. However, councils do not send reminders to parents about an upcoming school session. We assessed whether sending a Short-Message-Service (SMS) reminder would increase HPV vaccination rates within the program. Intervention: Participating councils sent a reminder to parents (of students who had consent to receive the HPV vaccine within the Victorian Secondary School Vaccine Program) two working days before the third school visit (unless the school visit fell on a Monday or Tuesday, in which case the reminder was sent one working day before the visit). There were two intervention conditions: Motivational SMS (arm A) vs. Self-regulatory SMS (arm B), and one control condition: No SMS (arm C). The only difference between the intervention conditions was the message content: Arm A: Reminder from [council name]: [name of child] has a vaccine appointment at school this [day of week]. Vaccine preventable diseases are still a problem in the community and children most at risk are those that have not been immunised. Please contact [council phone number] if your child cannot attend. Arm B: Reminder from [council name]: [name of child] has a vaccine appointment at school this [day of week]. Make a plan now for how [name of child] will get to school on-time on immunisation day. Please contact [council phone number] if your child cannot attend. Thank you. The SMS reminders were personalised by including the childs name in the message (previous research shows this can increase the effect of communication).
Sponsors
Monash University
Study design
Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Prevention
Masking
Blinded (masking used) (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
10 Years to 14 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
From the 79 councils in Victoria, the research team identified 12 with a sufficient number of schools in their catchment to participate in the study. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services then invited these councils to participate in the study on behalf of the research team. Seven councils, representing 108 schools, agreed to participate in the research. From these schools, the research team identified eligible schools to participate in the study according to the following criteria: 1 ) equal to or greater than 20 students enrolled in year 7 to ensure the anonymity of the participating students, 2) the school had provided a class list with parental/guardian mobile phone numbers to enable intervention delivery, 3) the school had not already completed the third and final school visit (in 2016 the HPV vaccine was delivered over three school visits in Victoria), 4) the school did not have a grade 6 cohort – to reduce the risk of contamination, based on the assumption that parents are more likely to communicate with each other when they share a longer history at the school.. This resulted in 31 (28.70%) of the 108 schools being included in the study. Of the 5,479 year 7 students enrolled in these schools 4,386 (80.05%) had consent to receive the HPV vaccine within the secondary school vaccine program and were therefore included in the study.
Exclusion criteria
Students who do not have consent to receive the HPV vaccine within the secondary school vaccine program.
Outcome results
None listed