Use of a Smartphone App to Assess Neonatal Jaundice.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of jaundice in outpatient neonates is problematic. Visual assessment is inaccurate, and more exact methodologies are cumbersome and/or expensive. Our goal in this study was to assess the accuracy of a technology based on the analysis of digital images of newborns obtained using a smartphone application called BiliCam. METHODS: Paired BiliCam images and total serum bilirubin (TSB) levels were obtained in a diverse sample of newborns (<7 days old) at 7 sites across the United States. By using specialized software, data on color values in the images ("features") were extracted. Machine learning and regression analysis techniques were used to identify features for inclusion in models to predict an estimated bilirubin level for each newborn. The correlation between estimated bilirubin levels and TSB levels was calculated. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity of the estimated bilirubin levels in identifying newborns with high TSB levels were calculated by using 2 recommended decision rules for jaundice screening. RESULTS: Estimated bilirubin levels were calculated and compared with TSB levels in a diverse sample of 530 newborns (20.8% African American, 26.3% Hispanic, and 21.2% Asian American). The overall correlation was 0.91, and correlations among white, African American, Hispanic, and Asian American newborns were 0.92, 0.90, 0.91, and 0.88, respectively. The sensitivities of BiliCam in identifying newborns with high TSB levels were 84.6% and 100%, respectively, by using 2 decision rules; specificities were 75.1% and 76.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BiliCam provided accurate estimates of TSB values, demonstrating that an inexpensive technology that uses commodity smartphones could be used to effectively screen newborns for jaundice.

A national survey of physician practices regarding influenza vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize U.S. physicians' practices regarding influenza vaccine, particularly regarding the capacity to identify high-risk patients, the use of reminder systems, and the typical period of administration of vaccine. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey administered in October and November 2000. PARTICIPANTS: National random sample of internists and family physicians (N = 1,606). RESULTS: Response rate was 60%. Family physicians are significantly more likely than internists to administer influenza vaccine in their practices (82% vs 76%; P <.05). Eighty percent of physicians typically administer influenza vaccine for 3 to 5 months, but only 27% continue administering vaccine after the typical national peak of influenza activity. Only one half of physicians said their practices are able to generate lists of patients with chronic illnesses at high risk for complications of influenza, and only one quarter had used mail or telephone reminder systems to contact high-risk patients. Physicians working in a physician network (including managed care organizations) are more than twice as likely to use reminders as physicians in other practice settings (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 3.55). CONCLUSIONS: Over three quarters of U.S. internists and family physicians routinely administer influenza vaccine, but few continue immunization efforts past the typical national peak of influenza activity. Many physicians may be limited by their practice data systems' capacity to identify high-risk patients. Despite the known effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reminder systems, few physicians use reminders for influenza vaccination efforts. These findings raise concerns about meeting domestic influenza vaccination goals-especially for individuals with chronic illness and during periods of delayed vaccine availability-and the possibility of increased morbidity and mortality attributable to influenza as a result.

A survey of pediatricians on the reintroduction of a rotavirus vaccine.

OBJECTIVE: Rhesus-based rotavirus tetravalent vaccine (RRV-TV; RotaShield) was withdrawn voluntarily from the market in October 1999, and recommendations for use were suspended. Rotavirus infection continues to be a significant health problem affecting children worldwide. The objective of this study was to investigate whether pediatricians would either reconsider using RRV-TV or consider other, newer, and presumably safer rotavirus vaccines if they were recommended routinely and to determine factors that influence their opinion. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 250 members of the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and to 437 randomly selected members of the Georgia Chapter of the AAP. Nonresponders received reminder questionnaires. RESULTS: Of the 687 pediatricians surveyed, 384 (56%) responded. Responses from 319 eligible immunization providers were included in the final analysis. Although only 15% of respondents reported that they would give RRV-TV if it were available today, 94% reported that they would use a new rotavirus vaccine if proved to be safer than RRV-TV and if recommended by the AAP and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for routine use among infants. Barriers to reintroducing a rotavirus vaccine were fear of adverse reactions among 95% of pediatricians, followed by potential high vaccine cost (63%) and amount of time required to educate parents (57%). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians reported that they would use a rotavirus vaccine if it was safer than RRV-TV and routinely recommended by the AAP and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 3 communication modes (postal, fax, and e-mail) in a rotavirus vaccine physician survey. METHODS: We used 3 communication modes to distribute a survey to physicians listed in the membership directory of the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The directory listed 1391 members; however, 404 were deemed ineligible on the basis of their listing as a specialist, retiree, resident in training, or government public health employee. Of the 987 members expected to administer vaccines, 150 were selected randomly to receive the postal survey (postal group). Of the remaining listings, 488 (58%) of 837 listed a fax number; 150 members were selected randomly and faxed a survey (fax group). Of the remaining members, 266 (39%) of 687 had e-mail addresses listed; 150 members were selected randomly for the e-mail survey (e-mail group). A follow-up survey was sent by the same mode at 2 weeks. A final survey was sent via another mode (mixed mode) at 1 month: by fax to e-mail and postal nonresponders and by post to fax nonresponders and those without fax. RESULTS: Eligible respondents in the 3 survey groups were similar in their practice setting and location. Although the e-mail group had fewer median years (8 years) since medical school graduation than the fax group (19 years) and postal group (17 years), a similar percentage of responders in all groups had computers (>85%) and Internet access (> or =70%) at work. However, only 39% of members listed an e-mail address in the directory. In the 2 weeks after the first mailing, 39 surveys were completed via postal mail, 50 via fax, and 16 via e-mail. In the 2 weeks after the second contact (sent at 2 weeks), 20 surveys were completed via postal mail, 15 via fax, and 17 via e-mail. The response rate after the first 2 mailings was 41% (59 of 143) for postal, 47% (65 of 137) for fax, and 26% (33 of 125) for e-mail surveys. The third and final survey (sent 1 month after the first mailing) was sent by a different (ie, mixed) mode and elicited an additional 73 responses: 19 responses (15 postal, 4 fax) from the postal group, 19 responses (18 postal, 1 fax) from the fax group, and 35 responses (15 postal, 13 fax, 7 e-mail) from the e-mail group. Twenty-three percent (9 of 40) of the e-mail and 18% (15 of 83) of the fax surveys completed were returned on the same or subsequent day they were sent, compared with none of the postal surveys. There were significant differences among the 3 groups for invalid addresses/numbers (4% postal, 8% fax, and 16% e-mail) listed in the directory. Using mixed modes as the third contact, the overall response rate increased from 39% before mixed mode to a final of 53%. On the basis of the 3 initial groups, responses to 1 of 12 rotavirus questions differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Future use of e-mail surveys in selected circumstances is promising, because the majority of providers have Internet access and acknowledged interest in participating in e-mail surveys. E-mail surveys could be especially useful if rapid response time is necessary. There were fewer incomplete questions by participants who completed the e-mail survey compared with postal or fax participants. Updating membership e-mail addresses and routinely using e-mail as a communication tool should improve the ability to use e-mail surveys. There may need to be ongoing evaluations that critically evaluate providers' responses to e-mail surveys compared with other survey modes before e-mail surveys can become a standard survey tool. In the meantime, mixed-mode surveys may be an option.

Adoption of reminder and recall messages for immunizations by pediatricians and public health clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Strong scientific evidence and national recommendations support the use of reminder and recall messages to improve immunization coverage rates, yet reports have suggested that only a minority of pediatric practices use such messages. Our aims were to 1) determine the proportions of pediatric practices and public clinics that currently use practice-based reminder or recall messages and routinely undergo immunization assessment efforts, 2) evaluate barriers and supports to implementing these practices, and 3) identify predictors of either current use or plans for future adoption of these practices. METHODS: This study combined qualitative and quantitative methods in sequential phases. In the qualitative phase, we conducted semistructured, open-ended interviews with a convenience sample of 18 clinician-administrators representing adopters and nonadopters of these messages in both private practices and public health clinics. In the subsequent quantitative phase, we mailed a structured, closed-ended survey to national samples of randomly selected pediatricians (n = 600) and public clinics (n = 600). RESULTS: Response rates were 75% for pediatricians and 77% for public clinics. Among pediatricians, 38% were conducting regular assessments of immunization coverage but only 16% were currently using routine reminder or recall messages. Among public clinics, 85% were conducting regular assessments and 51% were using reminder or recall messages. Among pediatricians' practices, the most commonly reported barriers to the adoption of reminder or recall messages were lack of time and funding and the inability to identify children at specified ages. For pediatricians' practices, the strongest predictors of current use of reminder or recall messages were having a champion who led efforts to improve immunization delivery (odds ratio: 1.85; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-3.18) and current use of regular immunization assessments (odds ratio: 2.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.33-3.84). Likewise, for public health clinics, having a champion to lead immunization improvement efforts and believing that their current system needed improvement was associated with current use of reminder or recall messages. CONCLUSIONS: Reminder and recall messages remain underused by both pediatricians and public health clinics. Promising strategies to promote adoption of these approaches in both the private and the public sectors include identifying and training champions to promote immunization delivery improvement efforts and helping practices develop methods to identify children at specific ages.