While this is good news, I was a bit disappointed by the article. The key takeaways:

In all, 249 patients who were visiting their primary care providers participated in the study. Of these, 116 patients received a two-page vaccine discussion guide to read in the waiting room before their visit. Another 133 patients received invitations to attend a one-hour education session after their visit.

The percentage of patients who said they wanted to get a vaccine increased from 68% to 79% after using the vaccine guide. Following each intervention, 80% of patients reported they discussed vaccines more in that visit than they had in prior visits.

Of the 14 health care providers who completed the follow-up survey, 57% reported increased vaccination rates following each approach. Half of the providers felt that the use of the vaccine guide was an effective strategy in guiding conversations with their patients.

In the future, we will explore whether engaging patients on this topic earlier is even more helpful than doing so in the waiting room before their visit.

This might involve having clinical team members or care coordinators connect with patients ahead of their visit, either by phone or through telemedicine that is designed specifically for older adults.

So, the results were positive, but definitely not groundbreaking, I wouldn't mind, if the title hadn't been so clickbaity. (Not a slight at you, OP). I also fear the "next steps" will clash with the current reality of personnel shortages in the medical field in many countries.

Really, the better title would have been some snippy version of "providing patients with reading material relevant to their health situation in waiting rooms, and/or providing them further education on issues relevant to them will increase the rate of them engaging with it." Which would also have shown that the study isn't all that groundbreaking.

Also, sorry if that may read as a bit too doomy and gloomy or cynical, maybe I should end this with: This is still good news, the framing just could have been a bit less sensationalist from the publisher here.