Provider and Practice Experience Integrating the Dose-HPV Intervention into Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have rigorously evaluated the drivers of successful implementation of interventions to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of Development of Systems and Education for HPV Vaccination (DOSE HPV), a performance improvement intervention. METHODS: Primary care providers (PCPs), nurses, and individuals with leadership roles from pediatric and family medicine practices who attended DOSE HPV intervention sessions participated in qualitative interviews immediately following intervention completion. The study team professionally transcribed interviews and performed qualitative coding using inductive methods. Final analysis employed the Promoting Action on Research implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) model. RESULTS: Twenty-six individuals participated: 12 PCPs, 5 nurses, and 9 individuals with dual leadership and PCP roles. Participants described five factors that they felt contributed to program success: (1) evidence-based, goal-directed education; (2) personalized data feedback; (3) clinical leadership support; (4) collaborative facilitation; (5) repeated contacts/longitudinal structure of the intervention. Barriers to implementing the intervention included: (1) inability to standardize workflow across practices; (2) low pediatric volume, (3) competing priorities/lack of incentives, (4) ineffective involvement of nurses, (5) poor communication between clinical leadership and staff. DISCUSSION: Although many HPV testing interventions have been implemented, findings have been mixed. It is clear that having an effective, evidence-based intervention by itself is not enough to get it into practice. Rather, it is crucial to consider implementation factors to ensure consistent implementation and sustainability. Key factors for the success of the DOSE HPV intervention appear to include a collaborative approach, provision of useful evidence to motivate behavior change, and repeated contacts to ensure accountability for implementing changes. Workflow issues, ineffective lines of communication, and competing priorities at both the visit and the patient and population management levels can hinder implementation.

Effect of provider recommendation style on the length of adolescent vaccine discussions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providers' vaccine recommendation style affects length of the adolescent vaccine discussions. METHODS: We analyzed vaccine discussions using audio-recordings of clinical encounters where adolescents were eligible for HPV vaccines ± meningococcal vaccines. We measured length of vaccine discussions, the provider's use of an "indicated" (vaccination due at visit) or "elective" (vaccination is optional) recommendation style, and vaccine receipt. Parent and child demographics, parental vaccination intentions, and parental satisfaction with vaccine discussion were collected from pre- and post-visit surveys. We used linear and logit regressions with random effects to estimate recommendation style's association with discussion length and with vaccine receipt, respectively. RESULTS: We analyzed 106 vaccine discussions (82 HPV; 24 meningococcal) across 82 clinical encounters and 43 providers. Vaccine discussions were longer when providers presented vaccination as elective versus indicated (140 vs. 74 s; p-value < 0.001). Controlling for vaccine type, parental vaccination intent, and patient characteristics, an elective style was associated with 41 seconds longer vaccine discussion (p-value < 0.05). Providers used the indicated style more frequently with the meningococcal vaccine than with the HPV vaccine (96% vs. 72%; p-value < 0.05). Parents' odds of vaccinating were 9.3 times higher following an indicated versus an elective presentation (p-value < 0.05). Vaccine discussion length and presentation style were not associated with parental satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that using an indicated recommendation improves vaccine discussions' efficiency and effectiveness, but this style is used more often with meningococcal than HPV vaccines. Increasing providers' use of indicated styles for HPV vaccines has the potential to increase vaccination rates and save time during medical visits.

Screening for Cervical Cancer.

The most effective strategy for cervical cancer prevention involves vaccination to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections during adolescence followed by screening to detect HPV infections during adulthood. HPV vaccination before sexual debut can prevent HPV infections, precancers, and cancers. HPV vaccination of sexually active populations does not prevent cancer. Screening with HPV testing is the most effective method of detecting precancers and cancers between ages 25 and 65. Ensuring adequate screening around the age of menopause may be the key to preventing cervical cancer among elderly women. Most cervical cancers at all ages occur among unscreened or underscreened women.

Improving HPV Vaccination Rates: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped-wedge randomized trial of Development of Systems and Education for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (DOSE HPV), a multilevel intervention. METHODS: DOSE HPV is a 7-session program that includes interprofessional provider education, communication training, data feedback, and tailored systems change. Five primary care pediatric and/or family medicine practices completed interventions between 2016 and 2018; all chose to initiate vaccination at ages 9 to 10. We compared vaccination rates in the preintervention, intervention, and postintervention periods among 9- to 17-year-olds using random-effects generalized linear regression models appropriate for stepped-wedge design, accounting for calendar time and clustering of patients by providers and clinic. Outcomes included (1) the likelihood that eligible patients would receive vaccination during clinic visits; (2) the likelihood that adolescents would complete the series by age 13; and (3) the cumulative effect on population-level vaccine initiation and completion rates. Postintervention periods ranged from 6 to 18 months. RESULTS: In the intervention and postintervention periods, the adjusted likelihood of vaccination at an eligible visit increased by >10 percentage points for ages 9 to 10 and 11 to 12, and completion of the vaccine series by age 13 increased by 4 percentage points (P < .001 for all comparisons). Population-level vaccine initiation coverage increased from 75% (preintervention) to 84% (intervention) to 90% (postintervention), and completion increased from 60% (preintervention) to 63% (intervention) to 69% (postintervention). CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel interventions that include provider education, data feedback, tailored systems changes, and early initiation of the human papillomavirus vaccine series may improve vaccine series initiation and completion beyond the conclusion of the intervention period.

Effect of a multi-component intervention on providers' HPV vaccine communication.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of a multi-component intervention including communication training on provider beliefs and recommendation practices around the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine using both self-reports and audio-recordings of clinical interactions. Methods: We conducted a mixed method study at five family medicine and pediatric practices. Providers self-reported beliefs and practices about HPV vaccination via surveys and qualitative interviews conducted pre- and post-intervention. We also assessed provider recommendation style using audio-recordings of clinical interactions pre- and post-intervention. Content analysis was used to identify themes in qualitative interviews. Matched pre- and post-intervention surveys were analyzed for changes in provider beliefs and attitudes. Pre- and post-intervention audio recordings of clinical interactions were analyzed for observed differences in recommendation styles. Bivariate analyses of quantitative data used Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests; t-tests were used for continuous variables. Results: Providers reported in interviews that the intervention led to communication changes by increasing their knowledge, reframing the HPV vaccine as a routine vaccination, and providing tools for engaging with parents. Surveys indicated that the proportion of providers reporting that the HPV vaccine is one of the most important adolescent vaccines increased from 71% pre-intervention to 100% post-intervention (p = .03). Audio-recording analysis demonstrated that use of an indicated (presumptive) recommendation style increased from 62.5% pre-intervention to 79.6% post-intervention (p = .047). Conclusions: Educating providers about HPV vaccination and giving them tools to facilitate communication with parents can reframe HPV as a routine adolescent vaccination and motivate providers to routinely use effective recommendation styles in practice.

Calling the Shots? Adolescents' Influence on Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Decision-Making During Clinical Encounters.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine adolescents' influence on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine decision-making and receipt during clinical visits. METHODS: We recruited English- and/or Spanish-speaking parents and their adolescent children aged 9-17 years who were eligible for the first HPV vaccine dose and seeking routine care at pediatric and family medicine clinics in the Greater Boston area enrolled in a multilevel intervention to improve HPV vaccination coverage. Parents completed previsit surveys that included parental intention to vaccinate. We coded transcripts of adolescents' clinical encounters to define adolescents' participation in vaccine discussions and cooperation with immunization. Adolescents' influence on vaccine decision-making was determined based on analyses of their participation in discussions and parents' previsit vaccine intentions. RESULTS: A total of 113 adolescents and their parents participated. Eighty-seven percent of adolescents received their first HPV vaccine dose during the visit. Most reactions were negative (23% mild, 23% moderate, and 10% extreme); nearly all objections were concerns related to the pain of injection rather than specific to HPV vaccination. A minority of reactions were positive (12%), 33% were neutral, and 12% did not participate in vaccine discussions. All adolescents with positive or neutral reactions received vaccination, as did 91% of those with negative reactions. After accounting for parents' previsit vaccine intentions and analyzing discussions during clinical encounters, only 5% of adolescents appeared to influence vaccination either positively (n = 3) or negatively (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, adolescents rarely influenced parents' vaccine decision-making, although many exhibited distress over the pain of injections. This suggests that increasing adolescents' involvement in vaccine discussions may have limited effects on vaccination rates.

Relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to HPV and meningococcal vaccine receipt.

We described the relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to HPV and meningococcal vaccine receipt. Parent-child dyads that were eligible for both meningococcal and HPV vaccines participated in pre-visit surveys and consented to audio recording of their clinical interactions with healthcare providers related to vaccination. Surveys were analyzed for parent and child demographics and parental intention to vaccinate children with HPV and/or meningococcal vaccines. Audio recordings were analyzed for provider recommendation style, defined as indicated (provider stated vaccine was due at that visit) or not, and for child receipt of vaccines. Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine the relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to vaccine receipt. 56 parents/child dyads participated. 79% of children received HPV vaccines, and 93% received meningococcal vaccines. After controlling for demographic variables, parental intention did not differ by vaccine type. However, providers were less likely to use an indicated recommendation for HPV than for meningococcal vaccine. After controlling for demographic factors, parental intention, and provider recommendation style, vaccine type (HPV or meningococcal) was no longer associated with vaccine receipt Differences that were previously attributed to vaccine-specific factors may be explained by parents' and providers' roles in vaccine receipt. These findings suggest that interventions and policy recommendations regarding adolescent vaccination should focus on increasing parental demand for vaccines and ensuring that providers present all vaccines as the medical standard of care.

Indicated or elective? The association of providers' words with HPV vaccine receipt.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate provider recommendation is crucial to raising HPV vaccination uptake, yet scant research has explored actual conversations between providers and parents, the effect of parental pre-visit vaccine intention on vaccination, or the effect of conversation style on parental satisfaction with that conversation. METHODS: We analyzed 146 audio-recorded clinical encounters between providers, parents/guardians, and HPV vaccine-eligible adolescents, from May 2015 to March 2017, at eight practices in Northeastern U.S. Parents completed pre-visit measures of intent to vaccinate and post-visit assessments of satisfaction with vaccine conversations. We qualitatively analyzed transcribed audio recordings and evaluated associations between providers' vaccine introductions and vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Provider recommendations were empirically defined as "indicated" (clear recommendation that the child receive HPV vaccination at that visit), "elective" (vaccination presented as optional), or "contraindicated" (delay recommended). The vaccination rates were 87%, 68%, and 0% following "indicated," "elective," and "contraindicated" presentations respectively. Providers' statements attesting to the vaccine's value to the child did not affect receipt. Parental pre-visit intent to vaccinate was associated with vaccine receipt: 100% for likely/very likely compared to 28% for very unlikely. The association between vaccine recommendation style and vaccine receipt was most pronounced with undecided parents, with 92% accepting vaccination after an "indicated" recommendation vs. 68% after an "elective" recommendation. Satisfaction with vaccine conversations was high regardless of recommendation style. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the words used to introduce HPV vaccination have the potential to inform parents' HPV vaccination decisions. Providers should be encouraged to simply state, "Your child is due for the HPV vaccine today."