Trial Outcomes & Findings for Healthy, Immunized Communities Study (NCT NCT03854734)

NCT ID: NCT03854734

Last Updated: 2024-07-12

Results Overview

Parental intent to vaccinate their adolescent child with Tdap, MCV, and HPV vaccines, was dichotomized for each vaccine in the survey. Tdap and MCV included the options 1) intention to vaccinate/vaccinated ("plan to get this shot before the first day of 7th grade" or "up-to-date with this shot") or 2) no intention to vaccinate ("no plans to get this shot" or "have or plan to submit an exemption for this shot"). The HPV variable excluded the option "have or plan to submit an exemption for this shot" as vaccine is not required for school entry. Variables (Tdap, MCV, HPV) were compared within and between treatment groups from baseline to 6 mo. follow up with a generalized estimating equations model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model. Risk ratios resulting from these models were used to quantify the magnitude and direction of any significant differences.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

148 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Participants were assessed at baseline and follow-up at 6 months.

Results posted on

2024-07-12

Participant Flow

Recruitment occurred between February and September 2019. Participants were recruited through the participating school partner, who distributed a recruitment flyer via email and through social media channels. Participants were also recruited through in-person events at the participating schools, such as chorus concerts and parent-teacher conferences.

Four schools were randomized to two arms (intervention vs. control). 502 individuals were assessed for eligibility and 354 were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria (n=265) or declining to participate (n=89).

Unit of analysis: Schools

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Usual Care
Educational emails about broad health topics to keep control group engaged
Multi-Component Intervention
(1) a community event to raise parental awareness of the importance of vaccination; (2) social marketing to target parents' attitudes and knowledge around vaccinations in the form of educational material Community Event: Formative focus group data was used to design an educational community event to improve information share and vaccine education/knowledge. Educational Material: Formative focus group data was used to design educational messaging to be electronically distributed to intervention participants
Overall Study
STARTED
70 2
78 2
Overall Study
COMPLETED
70 2
78 2
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
0 0
0 0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Healthy, Immunized Communities Study

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Usual Care
n=70 Participants
Educational emails about broad health topics to keep control group engaged
Multi-Component Intervention
n=78 Participants
(1) a community event to raise parental awareness of the importance of vaccination; (2) social marketing to target parents' attitudes and knowledge around vaccinations in the form of educational material Community Event: Formative focus group data was used to design an educational community event to improve information share and vaccine education/knowledge. Educational Material: Formative focus group data was used to design educational messaging to be electronically distributed to intervention participants
Total
n=148 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Continuous
38.00 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.79 • n=5 Participants
40.46 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.59 • n=7 Participants
39.32 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.21 • n=5 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · Male
11 Participants
n=5 Participants
7 Participants
n=7 Participants
18 Participants
n=5 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · Female
57 Participants
n=5 Participants
68 Participants
n=7 Participants
125 Participants
n=5 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Gender · No response
2 Participants
n=5 Participants
3 Participants
n=7 Participants
5 Participants
n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · White
32 Participants
n=5 Participants
43 Participants
n=7 Participants
75 Participants
n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Black/African American
6 Participants
n=5 Participants
7 Participants
n=7 Participants
13 Participants
n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Hispanic or Latino
22 Participants
n=5 Participants
20 Participants
n=7 Participants
42 Participants
n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · Other
10 Participants
n=5 Participants
7 Participants
n=7 Participants
17 Participants
n=5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity · No response
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
1 Participants
n=7 Participants
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship Status
Single OR separated OR divorced OR widowed
26 Participants
n=5 Participants
30 Participants
n=7 Participants
56 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship Status
Married OR living with partner
43 Participants
n=5 Participants
46 Participants
n=7 Participants
89 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship Status
No response
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
2 Participants
n=7 Participants
3 Participants
n=5 Participants
Annual household income
≤$40,000
31 Participants
n=5 Participants
27 Participants
n=7 Participants
58 Participants
n=5 Participants
Annual household income
$40,001 - $80,000
26 Participants
n=5 Participants
25 Participants
n=7 Participants
51 Participants
n=5 Participants
Annual household income
>$80,000
12 Participants
n=5 Participants
23 Participants
n=7 Participants
35 Participants
n=5 Participants
Annual household income
No Response
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
3 Participants
n=7 Participants
4 Participants
n=5 Participants
Education
High School or Less
35 Participants
n=5 Participants
29 Participants
n=7 Participants
64 Participants
n=5 Participants
Education
Some College
15 Participants
n=5 Participants
12 Participants
n=7 Participants
27 Participants
n=5 Participants
Education
College Graduate
20 Participants
n=5 Participants
37 Participants
n=7 Participants
57 Participants
n=5 Participants
Education
No response
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship to child
Mother
56 Participants
n=5 Participants
66 Participants
n=7 Participants
122 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship to child
Father
9 Participants
n=5 Participants
8 Participants
n=7 Participants
17 Participants
n=5 Participants
Relationship to child
Guardian/Grandparent
5 Participants
n=5 Participants
4 Participants
n=7 Participants
9 Participants
n=5 Participants
Grade of child
6th
37 Participants
n=5 Participants
33 Participants
n=7 Participants
70 Participants
n=5 Participants
Grade of child
7th
22 Participants
n=5 Participants
29 Participants
n=7 Participants
51 Participants
n=5 Participants
Grade of child
8th
11 Participants
n=5 Participants
16 Participants
n=7 Participants
27 Participants
n=5 Participants
Gender of child
Male
40 Participants
n=5 Participants
44 Participants
n=7 Participants
84 Participants
n=5 Participants
Gender of child
Female
30 Participants
n=5 Participants
34 Participants
n=7 Participants
64 Participants
n=5 Participants
Parent participation in school events per year
≤1
41 Participants
n=5 Participants
37 Participants
n=7 Participants
78 Participants
n=5 Participants
Parent participation in school events per year
2-5
25 Participants
n=5 Participants
24 Participants
n=7 Participants
49 Participants
n=5 Participants
Parent participation in school events per year
≥6
4 Participants
n=5 Participants
16 Participants
n=7 Participants
20 Participants
n=5 Participants
Parent participation in school events per year
No response
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
1 Participants
n=7 Participants
1 Participants
n=5 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Participants were assessed at baseline and follow-up at 6 months.

Population: 4 middle schools were randomized to either a usual care or multi-component intervention arm. Participants (parents) were assigned to a study arm based on their associated middle school. 30 participants either did not complete the follow up survey (n=27) or did not answer all questions (n=3), as questions were not required. Discrepancies in percentage reporting in the outcomes table below results from inconsistent rates of missingess (range 0-4) across variables (Tdap, MCV, HPV).

Parental intent to vaccinate their adolescent child with Tdap, MCV, and HPV vaccines, was dichotomized for each vaccine in the survey. Tdap and MCV included the options 1) intention to vaccinate/vaccinated ("plan to get this shot before the first day of 7th grade" or "up-to-date with this shot") or 2) no intention to vaccinate ("no plans to get this shot" or "have or plan to submit an exemption for this shot"). The HPV variable excluded the option "have or plan to submit an exemption for this shot" as vaccine is not required for school entry. Variables (Tdap, MCV, HPV) were compared within and between treatment groups from baseline to 6 mo. follow up with a generalized estimating equations model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model. Risk ratios resulting from these models were used to quantify the magnitude and direction of any significant differences.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care
n=2 Middle Schools
Educational emails about broad health topics to keep control group engaged
Multi-Component Intervention
n=2 Middle Schools
(1) a community event to raise parental awareness of the importance of vaccination; (2) social marketing to target parents' attitudes and knowledge around vaccinations in the form of educational material Community Event: Formative focus group data was used to design an educational community event to improve information share and vaccine education/knowledge. Educational Material: Formative focus group data was used to design educational messaging to be electronically distributed to intervention participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) : Vaccine intention at baseline
74.3 percentage of participants
83.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) : Vaccine intention at follow-up
97.9 percentage of participants
93.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV) : Vaccine intention at baseline
72.9 percentage of participants
80.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV) : Vaccine intention at follow-up
91.5 percentage of participants
91.6 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Human papillomavirus (HPV) : Vaccine intention at baseline
84.1 percentage of participants
84.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Intent to Vaccinate Adolescent Child (Tdap, MCV, HPV)
Human papillomavirus (HPV) : Vaccine intention at follow-up
85.7 percentage of participants
87.3 percentage of participants

Adverse Events

Usual Care

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Multi-Component Intervention

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Dr. Jennifer Kraschnewski, Professor of Medicine and Public Health Sciences

Penn State College of Medicine

Phone: 717-531-8161

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place