Methods |
Purpose: to compare effects of reminder letters and checklists to obtain influenza vaccination to no intervention Design: RCT, participants randomised Duration of study: enrolment during 3 months in "fall of 1984" Interval between intervention and when outcome was measured: 12 months before and after randomisation Power computation: not performed Statistics: t tests; Chi2
|
Participants |
Country: USA Setting: community practice in New England with 5 family physicians and 1 internist
Eligible participants: (health status) > 65 with office visits during 3‐month enrolment period in 1984; exclusions: no telephone, transient, blind, demented, terminally ill; 156 potential participants, 31 not eligible; 117 returned baseline questionnaire; 2 died and 1 moved during study Age: 74 Gender: 68% f |
Interventions |
Intervention: mailed personal prevention checklists, letters encouraging use of checklists to keep track of preventive health care Control: no intervention |
Outcomes |
Outcome measured: % vaccinated Time points from the study that are considered in the review or measured or reported in the study: 12 months before and after randomisation % vaccinated by 12 months after randomisation |
Notes |
Funding: American Academy of Family Physicians and US Public Health Service |
Risk of bias |
Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
"participants were assigned randomly" (no statement about method) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
No statement |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes |
Low risk |
No statement, chart audit for vaccinations (not stated who performed chart audit, but was retrospective), and questionnaires for vaccination received elsewhere |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes |
Low risk |
All 114 recruited patients were followed to the end of the study; chart audit for vaccinations, and questionnaires for vaccination received elsewhere |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
No selective reporting |