Pediatric HPV vaccination: Provider recommendations matter among hesitant parents.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. HPV-associated diseases are preventable with vaccination, but HPV vaccine coverage remains below other vaccines recommended during childhood and adolescence. We examined correlates of pediatric HPV vaccination among parents who have reported hesitancy toward the HPV vaccine. In addition to sociodemographic correlates, we investigated the relationships between the social process of healthcare provider recommendations and pediatric HPV vaccination. METHODS: We utilized phone survey data (N = 2201) collected in October 2022 via random digit dialing of Arkansan adults-Black and Hispanic respondents were oversampled for adequate representation. The survey was provided in English and Spanish. The analysis focused on a subsample of parents of children ages 9 to 17 years who reported HPV vaccine hesitancy (n = 201). Analyses include descriptive statistics, bivariate logistic regression, and multivariate logistic regression with Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation. RESULTS: A third (32.96%) of vaccine-hesitant parents reported their child(ren) had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Only half (50.93%) of vaccine-hesitant parents received a healthcare provider recommendation to vaccinate their child(ren) between the ages of 9 and 17 against HPV. Adjusted odds of pediatric HPV vaccination were four times greater when vaccine-hesitant parents received a healthcare provider's recommendation (OR = 4.67; 95% CI[1.89, 11.55]) compared to when they had not. Pediatric HPV vaccination for parents whose provider did not recommend the HPV vaccine was not significantly different from those with no provider. CONCLUSION: Healthcare provider recommendations are important for promoting HPV vaccination even among parents who are vaccine hesitant. Additional research is needed to understand why pediatric HPV vaccine recommendations are not made more often or consistently, particularly among vaccine-hesitant populations. This study demonstrates support for the growing body of research on hesitant adopters.

Rural Research Network to engage rural and minority community members in translational research.

Background: To address the high prevalence of health disparities and lack of research opportunities among rural and minority communities, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) developed the Rural Research Network in January 2020. Aim: The aim of this report is to describe our process and progress in developing a rural research network. The Rural Research Network provides a platform to expand research participation opportunities to rural Arkansans, many of whom are older adults, low-income individuals, and underrepresented minority populations. Methods: The Rural Research Network leverages existing UAMS Regional Programs family medicine residency clinics within an academic medical center. Results: Since the inception of the Rural Research Network, research infrastructure and processes have been built within the regional sites. Twelve diverse studies have been implemented with recruitment and data collection from 9248 participants, and 32 manuscripts have been published with residents and faculty from the regional sites. Most studies were able to recruit Black/African American participants at or above a representative sample. Conclusions: As the Rural Research Network matures, the types of research will expand in parallel with the health priorities of Arkansas. Relevance to Patients: The Rural Research Network demonstrates how Cancer Institutes and sites funded by a Clinical and Translational Science Award can collaborate to expand research capacity and increase opportunities for research among rural and minority communities.

Temporal Variations in Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections by Race and Ethnicity in Arkansas.

Background: The aim of this study was to estimate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates in the small rural state of Arkansas, using SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence as an indicator of infection. Methods: We collected residual serum samples from adult outpatients seen at hospitals or clinics in Arkansas for non-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related reasons. A total of 5804 samples were identified over 3 time periods: 15 August-5 September 2020 (time period 1), 12 September-24 October 2020 (time period 2), and 7 November-19 December 2020 (time period 3). Results: The age-, sex-, race-, and ethnicity-standardized SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence during each period, from 2.6% in time period 1 to 4.1% in time period 2 and 7.4% in time period 3. No statistically significant difference in seroprevalence was found based on age, sex, or residence (urban vs rural). However, we found higher seroprevalence rates in each time period for Hispanics (17.6%, 20.6%, and 23.4%, respectively) and non-Hispanic Blacks (4.8%, 5.4%, and 8.9%, respectively) relative to non-Hispanic Whites (1.1%, 2.6%, and 5.5%, respectively). Conclusions: Our data imply that the number of Arkansas residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 rose steadily from 2.6% in August to 7.4% in December 2020. There was no statistical difference in seroprevalence between rural and urban locales. Hispanics and Blacks had higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than Whites, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 spread disproportionately in racial and ethnic minorities during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.