BACKGROUND: Tanzania is 1 of 20 countries where the majority of unvaccinated and undervaccinated children reside. Prior research identified substantial rural-urban disparities in the coverage and timeliness of childhood vaccinations in Tanzania, with children in rural settings being more likely to receive delayed or no vaccinations. Further research is necessary to identify effective and scalable interventions that can bridge rural-urban gaps in childhood vaccination while accounting for multifaceted barriers to vaccination.
OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes a type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid study to evaluate Chanjo Kwa Wakati (timely vaccination in Kiswahili), a community-based digital health intervention to improve vaccination timeliness. The intervention combines human resources (community health workers), low-cost digital strategies (electronic communication, digital case management, and task automation), a vaccination knowledge intervention, and insights from behavioral economics (reminders and incentives) to promote timely childhood vaccinations.
METHODS: The study will be conducted in 2 predominantly rural regions in Tanzania with large numbers of unvaccinated or undervaccinated children: Shinyanga and Mwanza. Forty rural health facilities and their catchment areas (clusters) will be randomized to an early or delayed onset study arm. From each cluster, 3 cohorts of mother-child dyads (1 retrospective cohort and 2 prospective cohorts) will be enrolled in the study. The timeliness and coverage of all vaccinations recommended during the first year of life will be observed for 1200 children (n=600, 50% intervention group children and n=600, 50% nonintervention group children). The primary effectiveness outcome will be the timeliness of the third dose of the pentavalent vaccine (Penta3). Quantitative surveys, vaccination records, study logs, fidelity checklists, and qualitative interviews with mothers and key informants will inform the 5 constructs of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. The results will be used to develop an implementation blueprint to guide future adaptations and scale-up of Chanjo Kwa Wakati.
RESULTS: The study was funded in August 2022. Data collection is expected to last from February 2024 to July 2027.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will address the lack of rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of community-based digital health interventions for promoting vaccination coverage and timeliness among children from sub-Saharan Africa and identify potential implementation strategies to facilitate the deployment of vaccination promotion interventions in low- and middle-income countries.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06024317; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06024317.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/52523.

Longitudinal cohort studies are critical for understanding the evolution of health-influencing behaviors, such as e-cigarette use, over time. Optimizing follow-up rates in longitudinal studies is necessary for ensuring high-quality data with sufficient power for analyses. However, achieving high rates of follow-up in web-based longitudinal studies can be challenging, even when monetary incentives are provided.
This study compares participant progress through a survey and demographics for 2 incentive structures (conditional and hybrid unconditional-conditional) among US adults using e-cigarettes to understand the optimal incentive structure.
The data used in this study are from a web-based longitudinal cohort study (wave 4; July to September 2022) of US adults (aged 21 years or older) who use e-cigarettes ≥5 days per week. Participants (N=1804) invited to the follow-up survey (median completion time=16 minutes) were randomly assigned into 1 of 2 incentive structure groups (n=902 each): (1) conditional (US $30 gift code upon survey completion) and (2) hybrid unconditional-conditional (US $15 gift code prior to survey completion and US $15 gift code upon survey completion). Chi-square tests assessed group differences in participant progress through 5 sequential stages of the survey (started survey, completed screener, deemed eligible, completed survey, and deemed valid) and demographics.
Of the 902 participants invited to the follow-up survey in each group, a higher proportion of those in the conditional (662/902, 73.4%) than the hybrid (565/902, 62.6%) group started the survey (P<.001). Of those who started the survey, 643 (97.1%) participants in the conditional group and 548 (97%) participants in the hybrid group completed the screener (P=.89), which was used each wave to ensure participants remained eligible. Of those who completed the screener, 555 (86.3%) participants in the conditional group and 446 (81.4%) participants in the hybrid group were deemed eligible for the survey (P=.02). Of those eligible, 514 (92.6%) participants from the conditional group and 401 (89.9%) participants from the hybrid group completed the survey and were deemed valid after data review (P=.14). Overall, more valid completions were yielded from the conditional (514/902, 57%) than the hybrid group (401/902, 44.5%; P<.001). Among those who validly completed the survey, no significant differences were found by group for gender, income, race, ethnicity, region, e-cigarette use frequency, past 30-day cigarette use, or number of waves previously completed.
Providing a US $30 gift code upon survey completion yielded higher rates of survey starts and completions than providing a US $15 gift code both before and after survey completion. These 2 methods yielded participants with similar demographics, suggesting that one approach is not superior in obtaining a balanced sample. Based on this case study, future web-based surveys examining US adults using e-cigarettes could consider providing the full incentive upon completion of the survey.
RR2-10.2196/38732.

BACKGROUND: High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional).
METHODS: A cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage).
RESULTS: Of the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, - 0.09, (95% CI, - 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, - 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms.