McPhee 2003.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after study (independent samples) Sampling frame: Vietnamese or Chinese‐Vietnamese adults age 18+ and parent of at least 1 child age 3 to 18 living in the same household Sampling method: telephone numbers of individuals with Vietnamese surnames randomly selected from area telephone books Collection method: physician or county health department contact via mail or telephone, or in person, to obtain verification of immunization status (n = 784) Description of the community coalition: Community mobilization campaign was sponsored by the Vietnamese Community Health Promotion Project, which subcontracted with the East Dallas Counseling Center to form a coalition of Vietnamese groups in Dallas. The 19 coalition members consisted of physicians, dentists, pharmacists, city and county department of public health and education officials, business leaders, veterans, seniors, teachers, researchers, parents, grandparents, homemakers, newspaper editors, and community‐based organization representatives. The coalition employed a program co‐ordinator and worked through 3 committees: advisory, planning, and outreach
Participants	Communities: metropolitan areas Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 3 to 16 at pre‐intervention, 5 to 18 at post intervention Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: large Vietnamese‐American population that had not received interventions for hepatitis B vaccination Intervention community (population size): Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area (41,591 Vietnamese‐Americans) Comparison community (population size): Washington, DC, metropolitan area (38,796 Vietnamese‐Americans)
Interventions	Name of intervention: not reported Theory: not reported Aim: to promote awareness of and responsibility for hepatitis B vaccinations of Vietnamese‐American children through families, healthcare providers, and community organizations Description of costs and resources: Costs included direct intervention costs (personnel, volunteers’ time, other operating expenses) plus vaccination costs. Prizes for children receiving vaccines and media publicity were donated  Components of the intervention: The coalition promoted physicians’ registration as Vaccines for Children providers, distributed referral lists of vaccine providers and educational  materials, conducted health fairs, sent targeted mailings, gave educational presentations, conducted home visits for new immigrants, worked at 2 weekly community clinics to translate and help children receive vaccines, and utilized free local media publicity. Estimated cost‐benefit ratio was 4.47:1 Start date: April 1998 Duration: 2 years
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures: proportion of Vietnamese‐American children who had received 3 doses of HepB (%) Time points: pre‐intervention (1998) and post‐intervention (2000)
Notes	This study also included a media intervention arm in the Houston metropolitan area that was not coalition‐driven, and was not included in this review Funding source: government
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Intervention not randomly assigned
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	High risk	At pre‐intervention, children in the control population reported significantly higher levels of HepB immunization than children in the intervention group; baseline levels were not taken into account in the main results
Baseline characteristics similar	High risk	Parents of children in the control group were more likely to speak English, have more education, higher income level, health insurance, and a Vietnamese healthcare provider than parents of children in the intervention group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Independent samples were measured pre‐intervention and post intervention, and response rates were similar (93% and 92.5%. respectively). However, HepB status was reported in only 44% to 61% of each sample. The main study analysis excludes respondents with missing outcome data, and a secondary analysis codes these individuals as unvaccinated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Protection against contamination	Low risk	No protection against contamination is noted, but study sites were separated by a large distance
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All intended outcomes appear to have been reported
Other bias	High risk	Characteristics of participants sampled within each group appear to vary considerably between pre‐intervention and post intervention with regard to income, insurance status, and provider ethnicity for the intervention group, and with regard to education, employment status, and provider ethnicity for the control group