Parent opinions about use of text messaging for immunization reminders.
Parent opinions about use of text messaging for immunization reminders.
复制标题
父母关于使用文本消息传递免疫提醒的意见。
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.1976
复制
发表时间：
2012-06-06
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Shah-Haque S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahlers-Schmidt CR;Chesser AK;Paschal AM;Hart TA;Williams KS;Yaghmai B;Shah-Haque S
遵守儿童免疫计划是各种因素的作用。鉴于越来越多地使用技术作为提高免疫覆盖率的一种战略，重要的是调查父母如何看待不同形式的沟通，包括传统手段和短信提醒。检查目前关于免疫信息的沟通形式、家长对这些沟通方式的满意程度、使用短信的感知障碍和好处，以及用于免疫提醒的短信的理想内容。结构化面谈由两个机构审查委员会制定和批准。从当地两家儿科诊所招募了50名父母作为便利样本。研究内容包括人口学问卷、成人功能健康素养测试(S-TOFHLA量表)的简写、有关免疫提供者短信交流的好处和障碍的问题以及免疫提醒的首选内容。内容分析针对障碍、益处和首选内容(所有Cohen‘s Kappas>；0.70)的反应进行。受访者大多为女性(45/50，90%)，非西班牙裔白人(31/50，62%)，年龄在20-41岁(平均29岁，SD 5)，有一到两个孩子(范围1-9)。几乎所有患者(48/50，96%)的S-TOFHL评分均在“适当”范围内。所有父母(50/50,100%)在预约时与孩子的医生面对面接触，74%(37/50)通过电话联系，没有父母(0/50，0%)使用电子邮件或短信。大多数家长对面对面(48/50，96%)和电话(28/50，75%)的沟通方式表示满意。在50名参与者中，49名(98%)有兴趣通过短信接收免疫提醒，所有家长(50/50,100%)都愿意通过短信接收普通预约提醒。家长们对短信提醒发表了200条评论。福利占评论的63.5%(127/200)。其余37.5%(73/200)的参与者认为存在障碍；然而，26%的参与者(13/50)无法识别任何障碍。家长们就短信免疫提醒的首选内容提出了172条评论。最常讨论的话题是截止日期(50/172，29%)、一般提醒(26/172，26%)和孩子的名字(21/172，12%)。大多数家长对传统的沟通方式感到满意；然而，很少有家长经历过关于免疫接种的任何其他形式的沟通。收到免疫提醒短信的好处远远超过了父母确定的障碍。几乎没有确定的障碍是特定于文本的。如果父母没有无限制的短信计划，那就是以成本为中心的。
Adherence to childhood immunization schedules is a function of various factors. Given the increased use of technology as a strategy to increase immunization coverage, it is important to investigate how parents perceive different forms of communication, including traditional means and text-message reminders. To examine current forms of communication about immunization information, parents’ satisfaction levels with these communication modes, perceived barriers and benefits to using text messaging, and the ideal content of text messages for immunization reminders. Structured interviews were developed and approved by two Institutional Review Boards. A convenience sample of 50 parents was recruited from two local pediatric clinics. The study included a demographics questionnaire, the shortened form of the Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults (S-TOFHLA), questions regarding benefits and barriers of text communication from immunization providers, and preferred content for immunization reminders. Content analyses were performed on responses to barriers, benefits, and preferred content (all Cohen’s kappas > 0.70). Respondents were mostly female (45/50, 90%), white non-Hispanic (31/50, 62%), between 20–41 years (mean = 29, SD 5), with one or two children (range 1–9). Nearly all (48/50, 96%) had an S-TOFHLA score in the “adequate” range. All parents (50/50, 100%) engaged in face-to-face contact with their child’s physician at appointments, 74% (37/50) had contact via telephone, and none of the parents (0/50, 0%) used email or text messages. Most parents were satisfied with the face-to-face (48/50, 96%) and telephone (28/50, 75%) communication. Forty-nine of the 50 participants (98%) were interested in receiving immunization reminders by text message, and all parents (50/50, 100%) were willing to receive general appointment reminders by text message. Parents made 200 comments regarding text-message reminders. Benefits accounted for 63.5% of comments (127/200). The remaining 37.5% (73/200) regarded barriers; however, no barriers could be identified by 26% of participants (13/50). Parents made 172 comments regarding preferred content of text-message immunization reminders. The most frequently discussed topics were date due (50/172, 29%), general reminder (26/172, 26%), and child’s name (21/172, 12%). Most parents were satisfied with traditional communication; however, few had experienced any alternative forms of communication regarding immunizations. Benefits of receiving text messages for immunization reminders far outweighed the barriers identified by parents. Few barriers identified were text specific. Those that were, centered on cost if parents did not have unlimited texting plans.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Hsieh, HF;Shannon, SE
通讯作者：
Shannon, SE
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Alderson, P;Sutcliffe, K;Curtis, K
通讯作者：
Curtis, K
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Chesser, Amy;Paschal, Angelia;Ahlers-Schmidt, Carolyn R.
通讯作者：
Ahlers-Schmidt, Carolyn R.
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Franklin, Victoria Louise;Greene, Alexandra;Pagliari, Claudia
通讯作者：
Pagliari, Claudia
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Ahlers-Schmidt, Carolyn R.;Hart, Traci;Wittier, Robert R.
通讯作者：
Wittier, Robert R.