Digital Gamification Tools to Enhance Vaccine Uptake: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Gamification has been used successfully to promote various desired health behaviors. Previous studies have used gamification to achieve desired health behaviors or facilitate their learning about health.

OBJECTIVE

In this scoping review, we aimed to describe digital gamified tools that have been implemented or evaluated across various populations to encourage vaccination, as well as any reported effects of identified tools.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Global Health, and ERIC for peer-reviewed papers describing digital gamified tools with or without evaluations. We also conducted web searches with Google to identify digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. We consulted 12 experts in the field of gamification and health behavior to identify any papers or tools we might have missed. We extracted data about the target population of the tools, the interventions themselves (eg, type of digital gamified tool platform, type of disease/vaccine, type and design of study), and any effects of evaluated tools, and we synthesized data narratively.

RESULTS

Of 1402 records, we included 28 (2%) peer-reviewed papers and 10 digital gamified tools lacking associated publications. The experts added 1 digital gamified tool that met the inclusion criteria. Our final data set therefore included 28 peer-reviewed papers and 11 digital gamified tools. Of the 28 peer-reviewed papers, 7 (25%) explained the development of the tool, 16 (57%) described evaluation, and 2 (7%) reported both development and evaluation of the tool. The 28 peer-reviewed papers reported on 25 different tools. Of these 25 digital gamified tools, 11 (44%) were web-based tools, 8 (32%) mobile (native mobile or mobile-enabled web) apps, and 6 (24%) virtual reality tools. Overall, tools that were evaluated showed increases in knowledge and intentions to receive vaccines, mixed effects on attitudes, and positive effects on beliefs. We did not observe discernible advantages of one type of digital gamified tool (web based, mobile, virtual reality) over the others. However, a few studies were randomized controlled trials, and publication bias may have led to such positive effects having a higher likelihood of appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital gamified tools appear to have potential for improving vaccine uptake by fostering positive beliefs and increasing vaccine-related knowledge and intentions. Encouraging comparative studies of different features or different types of digital gamified tools could advance the field by identifying features or types of tools that yield more positive effects across populations and contexts. Further work in this area should seek to inform the implementation of gamification for vaccine acceptance and promote effective health communication, thus yielding meaningful health and social impacts.

Costs of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Coverage Among Children in the United States: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) has recommended several interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective at increasing vaccination coverage.

OBJECTIVE

Conduct a systematic review to examine the costs of interventions designed to increase vaccination coverage among children and adolescents in the United States.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EconLit, Embase, and Cochrane.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Peer-reviewed articles from January 1, 2009 to August 31, 2019.

APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were identified with systematic searches of the literature, reviewed for inclusion criteria, abstracted for data on intervention, target population, costs, and risk of bias. Cost measures were reported as costs per child in the target population, costs per vaccinated child, incremental costs per vaccinated child, and costs per vaccine dose administered. Results were stratified by intervention type, vaccine, and age group.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were identified for full-text review. Across all interventions and age groups, the cost per child ranged from $0.10 to $537.38, and the incremental cost per vaccinated child ranged from $6.52 to $5,098.57. Provider assessment and feedback interventions had the lowest (median) cost per child ($0.17) and a healthcare system-based combined intervention with multiple components had the lowest (median) incremental cost per vaccinated child ($26.65). A community-based combined intervention with multiple components had the highest median cost per child ($537.38) and the highest median incremental cost per vaccinated child ($5,098.57).

LIMITATIONS

A small number of included intervention types and inconsistent cost definition.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in the costs of CPSTF-recommended interventions.

Digital Gamification to Enhance Vaccine Knowledge and Uptake: Scoping Review

Background

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to population health, and effective interventions are needed to reduce its frequency. Digital gamification is a promising new approach to tackle this public health issue.

Objective

The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the amount and quality of outcomes in studies evaluating gamified digital tools created to increase vaccine knowledge and uptake.

Methods

We searched for peer-reviewed articles published between July 2009 and August 2019 in PubMed, Google Scholar, Journal of Medical Internet Research, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and SocINDEX. Studies were coded by author, year of publication, country, journal, research design, sample size and characteristics, type of vaccine, theory used, game content, game modality, gamification element(s), data analysis, type of outcomes, and mean quality score. Outcomes were synthesized through the textual narrative synthesis method.

Results

A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria and were critically reviewed. Game modalities and gamification elements were diverse, but role play and a reward system were present in all studies. These articles included a mixture of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and studies comprising quantitative and qualitative measures. The majority of the studies were theory-driven. All the identified gamified digital tools were highly appreciated for their usability and were effective in increasing awareness of vaccine benefits and motivation for vaccine uptake.

Conclusions

Despite the relative paucity of studies on this topic, this scoping review suggests that digital gamification has strong potential for increasing vaccination knowledge and, eventually, vaccination coverage.

Optimising informed consent in school-based adolescent vaccination programmes in England: A multiple methods analysis

The process of obtaining informed consent for school-based adolescent immunisation provides an opportunity to engage families. However, the fact that parental consent needs to be obtained remotely adds complexity to the process and can have a detrimental effect on vaccine uptake. We conducted a multiple methods analysis to examine the practice of obtaining informed consent in adolescent immunisation programmes. This involved a thematic analysis of consent related data from 39 interviews with immunisation managers and providers collected as part of a 2017 service evaluation of the English adolescent girls' HPV vaccine programme and a descriptive statistical analysis of data from questions related to consent included in a 2017 survey of parents' and adolescents' attitudes to adolescent vaccination. The findings indicated that the non-return of consent forms was a significant logistical challenge for immunisation teams, and some were piloting opt-out consent mechanisms, increasing the proportion of adolescents consenting for their own immunisations, and introducing electronic consent. Communicating vaccine related information to parents and schools and managing uncertainties about obtaining adolescent self-consent for vaccination were the main practical challenges encountered. Survey data showed that parents and adolescents generally agreed on vaccine decisions although only 32% of parents discussed vaccination with their teenager. Parental awareness about the option for adolescents to self-consent for vaccination was limited and adolescents favoured leaving the decision-making to parents. From the interviews and variability of consent forms it was evident that health professionals were not always clear about the best way to manage the consent process. Some were also unfamiliar with self-consent processes and lacked confidence in assessing for 'Gillick competency'. Developing pathways and related interventions to improve the logistics and practice of consent in school-based adolescent immunisation programmes could help improve uptake.

Practical Approaches to Optimize Adolescent Immunization

With the expansion of the adolescent immunization schedule during the past decade, immunization rates notably vary by vaccine and by state. Addressing barriers to improving adolescent vaccination rates is a priority. Every visit can be viewed as an opportunity to update and complete an adolescent's immunizations. It is essential to continue to focus and refine the appropriate techniques in approaching the adolescent patient and parent in the office setting. Health care providers must continuously strive to educate their patients and develop skills that can help parents and adolescents overcome vaccine hesitancy. Research on strategies to achieve higher vaccination rates is ongoing, and it is important to increase the knowledge and implementation of these strategies. This clinical report focuses on increasing adherence to the universally recommended vaccines in the annual adolescent immunization schedule of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This will be accomplished by (1) examining strategies that heighten confidence in immunizations and address patient and parental concerns to promote adolescent immunization and (2) exploring how best to approach the adolescent and family to improve immunization rates.

Impact of Louisiana's HPV Vaccine Awareness Policy on HPV Vaccination Among 13- to 17-Year-Old Females

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization for 11- to 12-year-old adolescents. In 2008, Louisiana required the school boards to distribute HPV vaccine information to parents or guardian of students in Grades 6 to 12. This article investigates the impact of this policy on HPV vaccination among 13- to 17-year-old female adolescents using National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) data. Drawing on the data from the 2008 to 2012 NIS-Teen, we compared the difference in proportions of females who have been vaccinated before and after the policy. Using difference-indifference estimation, we explored the change in vaccination rates before and after the policy implementation in Louisiana compared with Alabama and Mississippi, two states that did not have such a policy in place. The difference-in-differences estimates for HPV vaccination were not significant. Physician recommendation for HPV vaccination was significantly associated with vaccination among females in Louisiana and Alabama (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.74; 95% confidence interval [CI; 5.22, 11.5]), and for those in Louisiana and Mississippi (aOR = 7.05; 95% CI [4.6, 10.5]). Compared to the proportion of female adolescents who had received physician recommendation in Alabama or Mississippi, the proportion in Louisiana did not increase significantly in the postpolicy period. HPV vaccination rates did not increase significantly in Louisiana compared to Alabama or Mississippi following the implementation of the policy. Despite Louisiana's policy, physician recommendation remains the key determinant of HPV vaccination. HPV vaccine awareness does not necessarily result in HPV vaccination.

Anticipated regret and health behavior: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Risk beliefs are central to most theories of health behavior, yet many unanswered questions remain about an increasingly studied risk construct, anticipated regret. The authors sought to better understand anticipated regret's role in motivating health behaviors.

METHOD

The authors systematically searched electronic databases for studies of anticipated regret and behavioral intentions or health behavior. They used random effects meta-analysis to synthesize effect sizes from 81 studies (n = 45,618).

RESULTS

Anticipated regret was associated with both intentions (r+ = .50, p < .001) and health behavior (r+ = .29, p < .001). Greater anticipated regret from engaging in a behavior (i.e., action regret) predicted weaker intentions and behavior, whereas greater anticipated regret from not engaging in a behavior (i.e., inaction regret) predicted stronger intentions and behavior. Anticipated action regret had smaller associations with behavioral intentions related to less severe and more distal hazards, but these moderation findings were not present for inaction regret. Anticipated regret generally was a stronger predictor of intentions and behavior than other anticipated negative emotions and risk appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipated inaction regret has a stronger and more stable association with health behavior than previously thought. The field should give greater attention to understanding how anticipated regret differs from similar constructs, its role in health behavior theory, and its potential use in health behavior interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record

School-located vaccination for adolescents: Past, present, and future and implications for HPV vaccine delivery

Adolescents were first specifically targeted for school-located vaccination (SLV) in the 1990s when hepatitis B catch-up vaccination was recommended for all adolescents. SLV affords the opportunity to access adolescents at a time when their activities have developmental import and the patients have the capacity to decline repeatedly missing school and extracurricular events to get vaccinated. As noted above, SLV has been primarily reserved for brief catch-up interventions among youth, with routine vaccination recommendations quickly defaulting to the primary care provider. Now in 2016, with relatively disappointing adolescent immunization rates for the routinely recommended human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, the SLV option is one that could potentially help increase vaccination rates for a particularly effective, life-saving, 3-dose vaccination series. This article will serve as a brief review of the successful use of SLV in other countries, lessons learned when SLV was employed to immunize adolescents against hepatitis B in the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the current hopes and challenges for the future of adolescent SLV programming in the United States. Overall, the shift to the use of SLV to administer routinely recommend vaccine for adolescents will require careful planning to implement known strategies for accessing youth and in addition to new strategies designed to assure appropriate reimbursement for cost-effect SLV services. While not the best option for all adolescents, SLV provides an important opportunity to immunize youth with limited access to healthcare services in the community at large.

Promising alternative settings for HPV vaccination of US adolescents

Vaccination in alternative settings, defined here as being outside of traditional primary care, can help address the pressing public health problem of low human papillomavirus vaccine coverage among adolescents in the United States. Pharmacies are promising because they are highly accessible and have well established immunization practices. However, pharmacies currently face policy and reimbursement challenges. School-located mass vaccination programs are also promising because of their high reach and demonstrated success in providing other vaccines, but control by local policymakers and challenges in establishing community partnerships complicate widespread implementation. Health centers in schools are currently too few to greatly increase access to human papillomavirus vaccine. Specialty clinics have experience with vaccination, but the older age of their patient populations limits their reach. Future steps to making alternative settings a success include expanding their use of statewide vaccine registries and improving their coordination with primary care providers.