Hull 2002

Methods	Purpose: to compare phone call by receptionist to attend influenza vaccination clinic to no intervention Design: RCT Duration of study: 25 September to 6 October 2000 Interval between intervention and when outcome was measured: data on influenza vaccination status was submitted mid‐December 2000 Power computation: for α = 0.05, β = 0.8, would require 384 participants to show increase in vaccination uptake from 40% to 50% Statistics: Chi2, ITT, generalised linear models for clustered data
Participants	Country: UK Setting: 3 general practices in East London and Essex Eligible participants: (health status); 1820 participants 65 to 74 not previously in an influenza vaccination recall system; exclusions: asthma, diabetes, COPD, IHD, renal disease Age: 69 Gender: 54% f
Interventions	Intervention 1: phone call by receptionist to attend influenza vaccination clinic Control: no intervention Co‐interventions: East London and City Health Authority sent letter to every patient ≥ 65 asking them to contact GP for influenza vaccination; national campaign September promoting influenza vaccination
Outcomes	Outcome measured: % influenza vaccination  Time points from the study that are considered in the review or measured or reported in the study: 25 September to 6 October 2000 % vaccinated by: 6 October 2001
Notes	Funding: ELENoR infrastructure grant
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"... households, which were randomised to either the control or intervention group by the study co‐ordinator using a computer program (STATA)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"... households, which were randomised to either the control or intervention group by the study co‐ordinator using a computer program (STATA)" (unclear if, once randomised, study co‐ordinator referred back to randomisation lists)
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Nurses who undertook the vaccination clinics were unaware of the household allocation to control or intervention group."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	E‐mail from author: "We did an intention to treat analysis, all households in the original randomisation were included in the analysis."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No selective reporting