IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v7y2023i2p240-265_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of postcard reminders on vaccinations among the elderly: a block-randomized experiment

Author

Listed:
  • CHEN, NUOLE
  • TRUMP, KRIS-STELLA
  • HALL, STACY
  • LE, QUAN

Abstract

Prior research in the behavioral sciences has demonstrated that reminders can be an effective tool for encouraging health-related behavior changes. This article extends that literature by reporting the outcome of a randomized controlled trial of mailed vaccination reminders. In addition to making a substantive contribution regarding the efficacy of mailed reminders, this article also makes a methodological contribution: it illustrates how researchers can study the causal impact of an intervention even when a pure parallel trial is not possible. In this study, the Louisiana Department of Health sent postcard reminders regarding four recommended vaccinations (influenza, tetanus, shingles and pneumonia) to 208,867 senior residents of Louisiana. We used block randomization and a stepped wedge design to assess the efficacy of the intervention. Individuals were blocked by their prior vaccine record and randomized to receive the postcard in one of four consecutive months (October–January). The reminder postcard had an overall positive effect on vaccination rates. The statistically significant and substantively small increase in overall vaccination rates was driven by participants who received the postcard reminder early in the intervention period.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Nuole & Trump, Kris-Stella & Hall, Stacy & Le, Quan, 2023. "The effect of postcard reminders on vaccinations among the elderly: a block-randomized experiment," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 240-265, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:7:y:2023:i:2:p:240-265_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X20000342/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:7:y:2023:i:2:p:240-265_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.