Black 1993

Methods	Purpose: to compare effects on influenza vaccination uptake of a home visit including an intervention promoting influenza vaccination to a home visit with an intervention promoting safety Design: RCT Duration of study: not stated Interval between intervention and when outcome was measured: not stated  Power computation: post hoc power computation showed 80% power α = 0.05 to detect 50% difference Statistics: percentages; multiple logistic regression
Participants	Country: Canada Setting: Hamilton, Ontario Eligible participants: (health status): 1011 clients ≥ 65 referred to public health nurses in Hamilton Age: 78 Gender: 71% f in influenza intervention group, 62% f in safety intervention
Interventions	Intervention 1: home visit including an intervention promoting influenza vaccination Intervention 2: home visit including an intervention promoting safety Control: no control group E‐mail from author: "our high rates post intervention in the intervention and control groups may have been due to attention bias, although we tried to minimize it in the 'safety' group by asking the PHNs to avoid discussing immunization history with safety group subjects. However, at that time the province and federal governments had become more active with media campaigns and that too could explain the high rates in both groups."
Outcomes	Outcome measured: % influenza vaccination Time points from the study that are considered in the review or measured or reported in the study: not stated % vaccinated by: not stated
Notes	Funding: Ontario Ministry of Health
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"were randomly assigned" (no method stated)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No statement
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No statement; "outcome data were obtained through telephone interview (or home visit) by two research assistants who were unaware of group membership."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	589 of 1011 eligibles excluded because of cognitive impairment or not active clients; and 57 declined; 157 received influenza and 148 safety promotion; 45 clients assigned to influenza group had already received influenza vaccine and were included in influenza group for ITT analysis Outcome data collected by 2 research assistants either through phone calls or home visits
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No selective reporting