Search

Background While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination. Methods In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11–17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal. Results 2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent’s health-care provider’s recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal. Conclusions HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.

Introduction Little is known about missed opportunities (MOs) for HPV vaccination during primary care visits at which influenza vaccination is delivered. Methods We extracted electronic health records for HPV vaccine-eligible 11-to-17-year-olds. We assessed the proportion of visits during which an influenza vaccine was given and an HPV vaccine was due, but not given (i.e., MOs). Results Of 56,135 eligible visits, 57.5% represented MOs for HPV vaccination. MOs were more common at visits where an initial versus subsequent HPV vaccine dose was due (68.6% vs. 31.3%) and for acute/chronic and nurse-only visits compared to preventive visits (74.0% and 80.2% vs. 36.7%). In a multivariable model, MOs were more likely for the initial HPV dose and for non-preventive visits, but did not vary by patient sex/age. Conclusions HPV vaccine MOs were common during visits where influenza vaccine was administered. Increasing simultaneous administration of HPV and influenza vaccines could increase HPV vaccine coverage.

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) is an evidence-based strategy for increasing vaccination rates that uses a population-level database such as a state immunization information system (IIS) to send notifications across large geographic areas. IISs are usually based in state public health departments, which could initiate C-R/R. While C-R/R is a promising strategy, the factors influencing its initiation and sustainment are not clear. Utilizing qualitative content analysis methodology and interviews with key stakeholders involved in or knowledgeable about C-R/R, we examined the characteristics of these initiatives and factors influencing their success. We identified and spoke with managers and senior leaders across IISs, health plans, health systems, pharmaceutical companies, and advocacy organizations and focused especially on C-R/R activities within IISs. Several considerations were determined important to C-R/R success: decision-making, stakeholder buy-in, partnerships, funding, data and technology, evaluation, and message content. Salient barriers were costs and lack of funding, poor contact data quality (i.e. telephone number, home address), and messaging that is either overly broad or too specific. Pertinent facilitators of C-R/R included notifying health providers in advance of an initiative, conducting a rigorous post-reminder/recall evaluation, and engaging a range of partners. Partnerships were important to stakeholders for multiple reasons including technical assistance, resource sharing, and sharing of best practices. Overall, our results illustrate the many opportunities to advance C-R/R through further collaboration within and across public health departments and potentially via public-private partnerships.

Purpose Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using Immunization Information Systems has been effective in increasing childhood immunization rates. Previously, C-R/R using autodialer for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine did not raise rates. We assessed C-R/R for HPV vaccine using other modalities and focused on younger adolescents. Methods We conducted a three-arm pragmatic RCT in randomly sampled primary care practices in Colorado (n = 88) and New York (n = 136), proportionate to where adolescents received care. We randomized, within practices, adolescents aged 11-14 years who had not completed the HPV vaccination series to receive C-R/R using different modalities (Colorado: autodialer, mail, or control; New York: autodialer, text, or control). Up to two reminders were sent in intervention arms for each dose needed between 2/2017 and 12/2018. Results In Colorado, no significant differences were found for series initiation (31.3% control, 31.1% autodial, 31.8% mail), with slight improvement for series completion in the autodialer arm (29.7% control, 31.1% autodialer, p = .04) but not the mail arm (30.9%, p = .06). No significant differences were found in New York for series initiation (24.1% for all arms) or completion (17.1% control, 16.9% autodial, 17.9% text). Adjusted analyses showed higher completion rates for the autodialer arm in Colorado but not for other arms. In Colorado, C-R/R reduced time to series completion by around 2 months. Cost per adolescent was $1.81 for mail; under $.40 for all other modalities. Conclusions C-R/R has less benefit for raising HPV vaccination rates than other studies have noted for childhood immunizations, although it may quicken series completion at little cost.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy as 1 of the 10 leading threats to global health, yet there is limited current national data on prevalence of hesitancy among US parents. Among a nationally representative sample of US parents, we aimed to (1) assess and compare prevalence of hesitancy and factors driving hesitancy for routine childhood and influenza vaccination and (2) examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and hesitancy for routine childhood or influenza vaccination. METHODS: In February 2019, we surveyed families with children using the largest online panel generating representative US samples. After weighting, we assessed hesitancy using a modified 5-point Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and labeled parents as hesitant if they scored >3. RESULTS: A total of 2176 of 4445 parents sampled completed the survey (response rate 49%). Hesitancy prevalence was 6.1% for routine childhood and 25.8% for influenza vaccines; 12% strongly and 27% somewhat agreed they had concerns about serious side effects of both routine childhood and influenza vaccines. A total of 70% strongly agreed that routine childhood vaccines are effective versus 26% for influenza vaccine (P < .001). In multivariable models, an educational level lower than a bachelor’s degree and household income CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in 15 US parents are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines, whereas >1 in 4 are hesitant about influenza vaccine. Furthermore, 1 in 8 parents are concerned about vaccine safety for both routine childhood and influenza vaccines, and only 1 in 4 believe influenza vaccine is effective. Vaccine hesitancy, particularly for influenza vaccine, is prevalent in the United States.

Importance Missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination during pediatric health care visits are common. Objectives To evaluate the effect of online communication training for clinicians on missed opportunities for HPV vaccination rates overall and at well-child care (WCC) visits and visits for acute or chronic illness (hereafter referred to as acute or chronic visits) and on adolescent HPV vaccination rates. Design, Setting, and Participants From December 26, 2018, to July 30, 2019, a longitudinal cluster randomized clinical trial allocated practices to communication training vs standard of care in staggered 6-month periods. A total of 48 primary care pediatric practices in 19 states were recruited from the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings network. Participants were clinicians in intervention practices. Outcomes were evaluated for all 11- to 17-year-old adolescents attending 24 intervention practices (188 clinicians) and 24 control practices (177 clinicians). Analyses were as randomized and performed on an intent-to-treat basis, accounting for clustering by practice. Interventions Three sequential online educational modules were developed to help participating clinicians communicate with parents about the HPV vaccine. Weekly text messages were sent to participating clinicians to reinforce learning. Statisticians were blinded to group assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes were missed opportunities for HPV vaccination overall and for HPV vaccine initiation and subsequent doses at WCC and acute or chronic visits (visit-level outcome). Secondary outcomes were HPV vaccination rates (person-level outcome). Outcomes were compared during the intervention vs baseline. Results Altogether, 122 of 188 clinicians in intervention practices participated; of these, 120, 119, and 116 clinicians completed training modules 1, 2, and 3, respectively. During the intervention period, 29 206 adolescents (14 664 girls [50.2%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 15 888 WCC and 28 123 acute or chronic visits to intervention practices; 33 914 adolescents (17 069 girls [50.3%]; mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.0] years) made 17 910 WCC and 35 281 acute or chronic visits to control practices. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities overall by 2.4 percentage points (−2.4%; 95% CI, −3.5% to −1.2%) more than controls. Intervention practices reduced missed opportunities for vaccine initiation during WCC visits by 6.8 percentage points (−6.8%; 95% CI, −9.7% to −3.9%) more than controls. The intervention had no effect on missed opportunities for subsequent doses of the HPV vaccine or at acute or chronic visits. Adolescents in intervention practices had a 3.4-percentage point (95% CI, 0.6%-6.2%) greater improvement in HPV vaccine initiation compared with adolescents in control practices. Conclusions and Relevance This scalable, online communication training increased HPV vaccination, particularly HPV vaccine initiation at WCC visits. Results support dissemination of this intervention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03599557

Objective To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. Study design Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities—4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. Results In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. Conclusions Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03294473 and NCT03246100 .

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Defining and measuring health for children with medical complexity (CMC) is poorly understood. We engaged a diverse national sample of stakeholder experts to generate and then synthesize a comprehensive list of health outcomes for CMC. METHODS: With national snowball sampling of CMC caregiver, advocate, provider, researcher, and policy or health systems experts, we identified 182 invitees for group concept mapping (GCM), a rigorous mixed-methods approach. Respondents (n = 125) first completed Internet-based idea generation by providing unlimited short, free-text responses to the focus prompt, “A healthy life for a child or youth with medical complexity includes: ___.” The resulting 707 statements were reduced to 77 unique ideas. Participants sorted the ideas into clusters based on conceptual similarity and rated items on perceived importance and measurement feasibility. Responses were analyzed and mapped via GCM software. RESULTS: The cluster map best fitting the data had 10 outcome domains: (1) basic needs, (2) inclusive education, (3) child social integration, (4) current child health-related quality of life, (5) long-term child and family self-sufficiency, (6) family social integration, (7) community system supports, (8) health care system supports, (9) a high-quality patient-centered medical home, and (10) family-centered care. Seventeen outcomes representing 8 of the 10 domains were rated as both important and feasible to measure (“go zone”). CONCLUSIONS: GCM identified a rich set of CMC outcome domains. Go-zone items provide an opportunity to test and implement measures that align with a broad view of health for CMC and potentially all children.