Herman 1994
| Methods | Purpose: to compare patient education to patient education and vaccination by nurses before the participants were seen by the physician and to no intervention Design: RCT Duration of study: 1 October 1989 to 31 March 1990 Interval between intervention and when outcome was measured: 1 October 1989 to 31 January 1990 Power computation: not performed Statistics: Chi2; ANOVA; logistic regression controlling for prior baseline vaccination status, age, race, gender, high risk comorbidity and physicians' level of training | |
| Participants | Country: USA Setting: Metro‐Health Medical Center, teaching hospital of Case Western Reserve University Participants: (health status) 1202 participants > 65 seen during 1988/9 and 1989/90 influenza seasons, of whom 756 seen during both seasons Age: 74 Gender: 69% f | |
| Interventions | Intervention 1 "patient education group": educational materials (background papers, guidelines, lectures) plus nurses educated participants with National Institute on Aging "Shots for Safety" and material on influenza vaccination from Ohio Dept of Health Intervention 2 "prevention team group": same as 1 but nurses allowed to vaccinate participants before seen by doctor and maintained health maintenance flow sheet for each patient Control: no intervention for participants Co‐interventions: physicians and nurse practitioners in all 3 groups received educational materials and opportunities to attend lectures | |
| Outcomes | Outcome measured: % vaccinated, by billing data, researcher chart review, health maintenance flow sheets Time points from the study that are considered in the review or measured or reported in the study: 1 October 1989 to 31 January 1990 % vaccinated by: 31 January 1990 | |
| Notes | Funding: Case Western Reserve University Teaching Nursing Home Program | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | "The three ... practices 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 | However, daily billing forms reviewed by trained research assistant |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | All 1202 participants analysed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No selective reporting |