Community Engagement: Why Oklahoma? Why Now?

IMPORTANCE: Oklahoma ranked 43rd in the 2017 America's Health Rankings largely due to health behaviors such as adult obesity, lack of physical activity and smoking. Oklahoma children also suffer from adverse childhood experiences that contribute to poor health outcomes. Community engagement, a process that involves people affiliated by geographic location and shared interest working together to address issues affecting community wellbeing, is a common model that has had some success in Oklahoma communities addressing child health. OBSERVATIONS: Factors that contribute to poor health in Oklahoma include not only health behaviors such as obesity and smoking, but also lack of access to care created by a lack of health insurance and primary care providers, compounded by the largely rural nature of the state. The National Institutes of Health is committed to funding research aimed at improving the health of rural and disadvantaged populations. Historically, these populations are difficult to reach and may not be interested in the national health research initiatives, but rather want to focus on health issues important to their communities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this article we discuss some of Oklahoma's most pressing pediatric health needs, community engagement efforts to address these issues and a newly funded NIH grant at OUHSC aimed at supporting and learning from these efforts.

Facilitators and barriers to pediatric clinical trial recruitment and retention in rural and community settings: A scoping review of the literature.

Children in rural settings are under-represented in clinical trials, potentially contributing to rural health disparities. We performed a scoping review describing available literature on barriers and facilitators impacting participation in pediatric clinical trials in rural and community-based (nonclinical) settings. Articles identified via PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were independently double-screened at title/abstract and full-text levels to identify articles meeting eligibility criteria. Included articles reported on recruitment or retention activities for US-based pediatric clinical studies conducted in rural or community-based settings and were published in English through January 2021. Twenty-seven articles describing 31 studies met inclusion criteria. Most articles reported on at least one study conducted in an urban or suburban or unspecified community setting (n = 23 articles; 85%); fewer (n = 10; 37%) reported on studies that spanned urban and rural settings or were set in rural areas. More studies discussed recruitment facilitators (n = 25 studies; 81%) and barriers (n = 19; 61%) versus retention facilitators (n = 15; 48%) and barriers (n = 8; 26%). Descriptions of recruitment and retention barriers and facilitators were primarily experiential or subjective. Recruitment and retention facilitators were similar across settings and included contacts/reminders, community engagement, and relationship-building, consideration of participant logistics, and incentives. Inadequate staff and resources were commonly cited recruitment and retention barriers. Few studies have rigorously examined optimal ways to recruit and retain rural participants in pediatric clinical trials. To expand the evidence base, future studies examining recruitment and retention strategies should systematically assess and report rurality and objectively compare relative impact of different strategies.

The impact of provider recommendation on human papillomavirus vaccine and other adolescent vaccines.

This study explored the association between provider recommendation and adolescent vaccine coverage. We analyzed data from the 2008 to 2018 National Immunization Survey-Teen including coverage with one dose of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY), Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), and one and three doses of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. We compared vaccine coverage between those who recalled a provider recommendation and those who did not. Among those who received a provider recommendation for MenACWY, coverage trended from 67.8% (2008) to 88.1% (2013), contrasted to those who did not, trending from 30.9% to 73.1%. Among those with a provider recommendation for Tdap, coverage trended from 47.6% to 89.7%, contrasted to those who did not, trending from 35.6% to 82.2%. Among females with a provider recommendation for HPV vaccine, receipt of initial dose of HPV vaccine trended from 57.5% (2008) to 74.3% (2018), contrasted to those who did not, trending from 18.1% to 49.8%, and among males, trended from 17.2% (2010) to 75.1% (2018) for those with a provider recommendation, compared to 0.5% to 44.7% for those without. In 2013, coverage difference by provider recommendation was 26.0% among females for one dose of HPV vaccine and 21.9% for three doses, and among males was 44.8% and 20.8%, respectively, while it was lower at 15% for MenACWY and 7.6% for Tdap. For each vaccine, coverage was higher with a provider recommendation; the largest difference was noted for HPV vaccine. This finding verifies for providers the importance of their recommendation, especially for the HPV vaccine.

A survey of office practice: Parents, front office staff, nurses and clinicians hold disparate views on adolescent vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Previous work suggests provider recommendation improves vaccine delivery. Less examined is the role of practice's front office staff and nurses in vaccine communication. Messaging and communication about vaccines should be consistent across all levels of the pediatric practice. METHODS: We distributed surveys to clinicians, nurses, front office staff, and parents of adolescents 11-17 years in pediatric and family medicine office practices. We inquired about perceived importance of adolescent vaccines and the use of recommendations to families about receiving vaccines. We also asked front office staff about concerns from families about vaccines as well as vaccine refusal for themselves and their child. RESULTS: Nurses perceived that the HPV vaccine was less important than the MenACWY and Tdap vaccines (% very important 84% v. 95% and 94%; P < .01). Parents also perceived HPV vaccine as being less important than MenACWY and Tdap vaccines (59% v 68% and 79%; P < .01. Between groups, parents perceived all vaccines as being less important than front office staff. Nurses and clinicians reported using a strong recommendation less often for HPV vaccine compared to the MenACWY and Tdap (70% v 84% and 84%; P < .01 for nurses, and 77% v. 88% and 86%; P < .05 for clinicians). Front office staff were more likely to report concerns from parents about HPV vaccine than from MenACWY and Tdap after the visit is complete. CONCLUSION: Parents, front office staff and nurses differ on the importance of vaccines. Interventions to improve vaccine communication and delivery must include all who work in the practice.

Team Science Process Builds Research Coordinators' Voices in a National Pediatric Clinical Trials Network.

Geographically-dispersed teams have become the norm in clinical research collaborations. The Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) Program, first authorized by Congress in 1993 and managed by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, has been developed for the purpose of broadening the geographic distribution of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical and behavioral research by enhancing the competitiveness for research funding of institutions located in states in which the aggregate success rate for grant applications to the NIH has historically been low. The IDeA States are composed of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the following 23 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) research program's IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN) was formed in 2016 with 24 sites within the IDeA states to provide clinical trial access to children in rural and underserved communities while building research capacity and infrastructure. In order to become effective, the network research coordinators used many methods to become more cohesive and productive. One of those methods was the use of Team Science.

IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network for Underserved and Rural Communities.

The National Institutes of Health's Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program aims to study high-priority and high-impact pediatric conditions. This broad-based health initiative is unique in the National Institutes of Health research portfolio and involves 2 research components: (1) a large group of established centers with pediatric cohorts combining data to support longitudinal studies (ECHO cohorts) and (2) pediatric trials program for institutions within Institutional Development Awards states, known as the ECHO Institutional Development Awards States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN). In the current presentation, we provide a broad overview of the ISPCTN and, particularly, its importance in enhancing clinical trials capabilities of pediatrician scientists through the support of research infrastructure, while at the same time implementing clinical trials that inform future health care for children. The ISPCTN research mission is aligned with the health priority conditions emphasized in the ECHO program, with a commitment to bringing state-of-the-science trials to children residing in underserved and rural communities. ISPCTN site infrastructure is critical to successful trial implementation and includes research training for pediatric faculty and coordinators. Network sites exist in settings that have historically had limited National Institutes of Health funding success and lacked pediatric research infrastructure, with the initial funding directed to considerable efforts in professional development, implementation of regulatory procedures, and engagement of communities and families. The Network has made considerable headway with these objectives, opening two large research studies during its initial 18 months as well as producing findings that serve as markers of success that will optimize sustainability.

Direct-to-adolescent text messaging for vaccine reminders: What will parents permit?

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-adolescent text messaging may be a consideration for vaccine reminders, including human papilloma virus (HPV), but no studies have explored the minimum age at which parents would allow adolescents to receive a text message. METHODS: We distributed a survey to parents of 10-17 year olds during any office visit in two practice based research networks in South Carolina and Oklahoma. We asked about parental preference for receiving vaccine reminders for their adolescent, whether they would allow the healthcare provider to directly message their adolescent, and if so, what would be the acceptable minimum age. RESULTS: In 546 surveys from 11 practices, parents of females were more supportive of direct-to-teen text message reminders than were parents of males, (75% v. 60%, p < .001). The median age at which parents would allow direct text messages from physicians' offices was 14 in females compared to 15 in males, p = .049. We found a correlation between the child's age and the youngest age at which parents would allow a direct text message. Of the parents who permitted a text message directly to their adolescent, most reported an allowable age higher than their adolescent's current age until the age of 15. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that direct-to-adolescent text messaging would be allowed by parents for older adolescents. This supports an intervention aimed at older adolescents, such as for receipt of MCV4 dose #2, delayed HPV vaccine series completion and annual influenza vaccination.

Adapting practice-based intervention research to electronic environments: opportunities and complexities at two institutions.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary care practice-based research has become more complex with increased use of electronic health records (EHRs). Little has been reported about changes in study planning and execution that are required as practices change from paper-based to electronic-based environments. We describe the evolution of a pediatric practice-based intervention study as it was adapted for use in the electronic environment, to enable other practice-based researchers to plan efficient, effective studies. METHODS: We adapted a paper-based pediatric office-level intervention to enhance parent-provider communication about subspecialty referrals for use in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) with partially and fully electronic environments. We documented the process of adaptation and its effect on study feasibility and efficiency, resource use, and administrative and regulatory complexities, as the study was implemented in the two networks. RESULTS: Considerable time and money was required to adapt the paper-based study to the electronic environment, requiring extra meetings with institutional EHR-, regulatory-, and administrative teams, and increased practice training. Institutional unfamiliarity with using EHRs in practice-based research, and the consequent need to develop new policies, were major contributors to delays. Adapting intervention tools to the EHR and minimizing practice disruptions was challenging, but resulted in several efficiencies as compared with a paper-based project. In particular, recruitment and tracking of subjects and data collection were easier and more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Practice-based intervention research in an electronic environment adds considerable cost and time at the outset of a study, especially for centers unfamiliar with such research. Efficiencies generated have the potential of easing the work of study enrollment, subject tracking, and data collection.