Search

BACKGROUND Rural adolescent vaccination rates lag behind urban. We sought to assess rural-urban differences in barriers to adolescent vaccination, perceived parental vaccine attitudes, and immunization delivery practices among public health nursing (PHN), pediatric (Peds), and family medicine (FM) clinicians. METHODS Internet and mail survey of Colorado PHN, Peds, and FM clinicians from June-August 2019. Study population was recruited from local health plans and the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Rural and urban responses were compared using Cochran Armitage trend, Fisher's exact, and chi-square tests. RESULTS Response rate was 38% (163/433; 91 rural, 72 urban). Rural respondents were less likely than urban to agree most patients have insurance that covers vaccination (86% vs 97%; P = .02). Rural respondents were less likely than urban to indicate most parents in their practice would agree with statements about vaccine benefits (P = .02) and trust in medical providers (P = .05). Rural respondents were more likely than urban to report adolescents were somewhat/very likely to receive vaccines at public health departments (65% vs 28%; P < .0001) and less likely to report adolescents were somewhat/very likely to receive vaccines at pharmacies (26% vs 45%; P = .02). Fewer providers strongly recommended HPV vaccine (81% for females, 80% for males 11 to 12 years) than other adolescent immunizations (Tdap: 97%, MenACWY at 11 to 12 years: 87%; influenza at 11 to 17 years: 87%; each P < .005, rural-urban responses did not differ). CONCLUSIONS Rural barriers to adolescent vaccination include logistic issues and parental vaccine attitudes. Efforts to improve rural adolescent vaccination should include public health departments and address vaccine confidence and access barriers.

Introduction: Since 2009, pharmacists in all 50 states have been authorized to provide vaccinations to adults. The objective of this study was to assess primary care physicians9 (PCPs) experiences with and attitudes about pharmacists administering vaccinations. Methods: Internet and mail survey of PCPs representative of American College of Physicians9 and American Academy of Family Physicians9 memberships. Results: Response rate was 69% (642/926). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed (79% “Strongly,” 19% “Somewhat”) that it is their responsibility to assure their adult patients receive recommended vaccinations. Most respondents agreed that pharmacists either did not have access to patient medical information (33% “Strongly,” 45% “Somewhat”) or did not have adequate vaccination history (33% “Strongly,” 41% “Somewhat”). The majority also agreed that pharmacists did not inform them when vaccinations were given (35% “Strongly,” 39% “Somewhat”) and did not enter vaccinations administered into immunization information systems (IISs) (20% “Strongly,” 37% “Somewhat”). However, 83% agreed (31% “Strongly,” 52% “Somewhat”) that it is helpful to have pharmacists share the role of vaccinating adults. Conclusions: PCPs have mixed feelings about pharmacists delivering vaccines. Universal use of IISs by pharmacists could partially address physicians9 concerns by providing a systematic way for pharmacists and physicians to share patient vaccination histories.

Introduction: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended shared clinical decision making (SCDM) regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians 1) recent practice regarding HPV vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years, 2) knowledge of HPV and the new SCDM recommendation, and 3) attitudes toward and anticipated effect of the new SCDM recommendation. Methods: From October to December 2019, we administered an Internet and mail survey to national networks of 494 general internist (GIM) and 474 family physician (FP) members of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians, respectively. Results: Response rate was 64% (617/968; GIM, 57%; FP, 71%). Fifty-eight percent were aware of the new ACIP recommendation; 42% had recommended HPV vaccination to adults 27 to 45 years, but most had administered HPV vaccine to very few of these patients (73% to 0% and 22% to 1 to 3). Fifty-five percent and 63% were unaware that HPV vaccination does not prevent progression of existing HPV-related cancers or infections, respectively and 57% were not sure what to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation about HPV vaccination. A majority reported they will be more likely recommend HPV vaccination to adults in the 27-to-45-year age range as a result of the new recommendation. Conclusions: Physicians are interested in recommending HPV vaccination for adults age 27 to 45 years despite ACIP not routinely recommending it in this age range. The majority need more education about the optimal use of HPV vaccine in this age group.

Purpose: It is important to share processes that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) can implement with PBRN members and partners to determine research topics of priority. Engaging partners at a preproject phase and continuing engagement throughout a project can help address topics of great need and increase meaningfulness at a local level. Methods: The State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) practice-based research network has a 20-year history of research topic prioritization. Annually, PBRN members and partners come together to set new priorities for SNOCAP to put focus on in the coming years. Methods from these Colorado PBRNs are shared as a framework for other PBRN networks, community and patient partners, and stakeholders to use. Results: Engaging PBRN members and researchers in a bidirectional manner in preproject prioritization helps address current needs and gaps in care and identifies topics that are meaningful and important statewide. SNOCAP shares various approaches and lessons learned, provides guidance to PBRNs wanting to establish priorities, and helps guide groups that want to engage, or engage more deeply with, network members. Priority setting methods, a sample agenda, and resulting SNOCAP projects from the past 5 years of prioritization are shared. Conclusions: Inquiry on a regular basis is an important step in practice- or community-based research. Getting to the local level to determine and fully address priority needs is not only “the right thing to do,” rather, it is essential in true bidirectional work.

Background: Patient and community engagement is essential to maintain the relevance of practice-based research. Empowered engagement requires going beyond the check box, with advisory groups involved in every aspect of a project. Here, 4 Colorado practice-based research networks (PBRNs) share their advisory group origins, as well as methods for continued engagement and the work that has resulted. Methods: PBRNs, like communities and practices, vary in form and function. In a 4-part case series, we describe commonalities and differences among advisory groups within the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP), a consortium of PBRNs in Colorado. Three SNOCAP advisory groups are well established, while a fourth is under development. Results: Each case shares ways in which advisory groups have been structured within SNOCAP, including meeting frequency, compensation, and member activities to ensure the design, conduct, analysis, and dissemination of research are grounded in the needs of patients and communities. We share 6 lessons learned regarding membership, relationships, relevance, care and feeding, listening, and showing up. Conclusions: SNOCAP believes advisory groups are the backbone and guidepost of PBRN work. Patient advisors are an essential and invaluable complement to traditional research when engaged beyond “basic” participation. Best structures for advisory groups depend upon stakeholder needs.

Background: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) perform clinically relevant research designed for immediate translation to patient care. Research questions developed with patients and parents are more likely to be relevant to stakeholders. This case study developed priority areas for patient-centered outcomes research in pediatric health within the context of the Colorado Children9s Outcomes Network, a statewide pediatric PBRN, and in collaboration with stakeholders. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods, community-engaged process to understand and develop a research agenda for our pediatric PBRN. With a stakeholder-engaged research team, we conducted 52 stakeholder interviews and 1 focus group (n = 9) addressing topics including child health issues, personal health care experiences, community health, and the health care system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed by researchers and parent advisors. We conducted a Web-based survey of PBRN stakeholders (n = 75) to rate priority issues identified in qualitative findings. Finally, we facilitated a community-engaged mixed-methods interpretation and issue selection process with our Network Advisory Board to identify issues of highest importance for Colorado Children9s Outcomes Network. Results: Six topic areas of importance to pediatric health stakeholders emerged from qualitative work. Participating stakeholders used rating surveys to rank these 6 topics. Pediatric mental health coordination and communication/integration with primary care was ranked as the most important and highest research priority. The Network Advisory Board additionally identified immunization uptake and transition from pediatric to adult health care as research priority areas. Conclusions: This pediatric PBRN identified numerous research priorities in pediatric health and selected 3 for immediate research action. PBRNs can use community-engaged, mixed-methods research approaches to set research priorities and develop patient-centered pediatric research agendas.

INTRODUCTION In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in series with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for at-risk adults ≥19; in 2014, it expanded this recommendation to adults ≥65. Primary care physicians' practice, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding these recommendations are unknown. METHODS Primary care physicians throughout the U.S. were surveyed by E-mail and post from December 2015 to January 2016. RESULTS Response rate was 66% (617 of 935). Over 95% of respondents reported routinely assessing adults' vaccination status and recommending both vaccines. A majority found the current recommendations to be clear (50% "very clear," 38% "somewhat clear"). Twenty percent found the upfront cost of purchasing PCV13, lack of insurance coverage, inadequate reimbursement, and difficulty determining vaccination history to be "major barriers" to giving these vaccines. Knowledge of recommendations varied, with 83% identifying the PCV13 recommendation for adults ≥65 and only 21% identifying the recommended interval between PCV13 and PPSV23 in an individual