Chlamydia trachomatis Infection, when Treated during Pregnancy, Is Not Associated with Preterm Birth in an Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

Preterm birth is a major public health problem, occurring in more than half a million births per year in the United States. A number of maternal conditions have been recognized as risk factors for preterm birth, but for the majority of cases, the etiology is not completely understood. Chlamydia trachomatis is one of the most prevalent sexually transmitted infections in the world. However, its role in adverse pregnancy outcome in women is still debated. In order to determine if genitourinary tract infection with C. trachomatis during pregnancy was associated with preterm birth, we conducted a case-control study on women who delivered at Boston Medical Center, an urban "safety-net" hospital that serves a socioeconomically disadvantaged and racially diverse population. Women with known risk factors for preterm birth or immune suppression were excluded. Variables collected on enrolled subjects included demographics; diagnosis of C. trachomatis during or prior to pregnancy; tobacco, alcohol, and illicit substance use; gestational age; and birthweight and gender of the newborn. We also collected urine for chlamydia testing at the time of delivery and placental biopsies for nucleic acid amplification and histological studies. A total of 305 subjects were enrolled: 100 who delivered preterm and 205 who delivered full term. Among those subjects, we identified 19 cases of pregnancy-associated C. trachomatis infection: 6/100 preterm and 13/205 full term, a difference which was not statistically significant. Only two cases of untreated chlamydia infection were identified postpartum, and both occurred in women who delivered at term. We conclude that genitourinary tract infection with C. trachomatis during pregnancy, when appropriately treated, is not associated with preterm birth.

Parents' and providers' attitudes toward school-located provision and school-entry requirements for HPV vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine parents' and providers' attitudes toward school-located provision and school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination. METHODS: Parents/guardians of 11-17 y old girls and pediatric healthcare providers at one inner-city public clinic and three private practices completed semi-structured interviews in 2012-2013. Participants were asked open-ended questions regarding their attitudes toward school-located provision and school-entry requirements for HPV vaccination. Parents' answers were analyzed with relationship to whether their daughters had not initiated, initiated but not completed, or completed the HPV vaccine series. Qualitative analysis was used to identify themes related to shared views. RESULTS: 129 parents/guardians and 34 providers participated. 61% of parents supported providing HPV vaccinations in schools, citing reasons of convenience, improved access, and positive peer pressure. Those who opposed school-located provision raised concerns related to privacy and the capacity of school nurses to manage vaccine-related reactions. Parents whose daughters had not completed the series were more likely to intend to vaccinate their daughters in schools (70%) and support requirements (64%) than parents who had not initiated vaccination (42% would vaccinate at school, 46% support requirements) or completed the series (42% would vaccinate at school, 32% support requirements; p < 0 .05 for all comparisons). 81% of providers supported offering vaccination in schools, wanting to take advantage of the captive audience, improve vaccine completion rates, and decrease the administrative burden on medical office staff, but were concerned about adequate information transfer between schools and medical offices. Only 32% of providers supported school-entry requirements, largely because they felt that a requirement might provoke a public backlash that could further hinder vaccination efforts. CONCLUSIONS: School-located provision of HPV vaccination was widely accepted by healthcare providers and parents whose children have not completed the series, indicating that this venue might be a valuable addition to improve completion rates. Support for school-entry requirements was limited among both parents and healthcare providers.

Why don't adolescents finish the HPV vaccine series? A qualitative study of parents and providers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe why adolescent females who initiated HPV vaccination completed or did not complete the series. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents/guardians of 11-17 year old female adolescents and their pediatric primary care providers in one inner-city public clinic and three private practices to ascertain why girls who initiated HPV vaccination did or did not complete the series. Qualitative analysis was used to identify perceived barriers and facilitators of completion. RESULTS: 65 parents/guardians participated: 37 whose daughters received 1 or 2 HPV vaccine doses and 28 whose daughters completed the series. 89% (n = 33) of parents who did not complete the series intended to do so, but were not reminded by the clinic or encountered logistical barriers. Four (11%) decided to stop the vaccine series. 33 providers participated: 24 physicians, 3 nurse practitioners, and 6 registered nurses. Half (n = 14, 52%) of the providers said they told parents when the next doses were due but relied on parents to schedule appointments, 11 (41%) scheduled the second dose when the first dose was given, and 2 (7%) tried to immunize patients when they returned for other appointments. None of the four practices had a reminder/recall system in place to ensure series completion. Of note, neither parents nor providers stated that the need for three doses was a barrier to series completion. CONCLUSIONS: Most failure to complete the HPV vaccine series occurred because providers expected parents to make appointments while parents expected to be reminded. Increased use of reminder/recall systems and team-based care with clear communication of expectations regarding appointment scheduling could increase completion rates.

Could Poor Parental Recall of HPV Vaccination Contribute to Low Vaccination Rates?

INTRODUCTION: Rates of initiation and completion of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series remain below national goals. Because parents are responsible for ensuring vaccination of their children, we examined the accuracy of parental recall of the number of shots their daughters received. METHODS: Parents/guardians of girls aged 11 to 17 years were asked to recall the number of HPV doses received by their daughters. Dose number was confirmed using provider-verified medical records. Logistic regression assessed variables associated with correct recall. RESULTS: A total of 79 (63%) parents/guardians correctly identified the number of shots their daughters received. Ninety-one (73%) were aware of whether their daughter started the series at all. The only factor significantly associated with accurate recall in logistic regression models was female gender of parent/guardian. CONCLUSION: Nearly 40% of parents/guardians inaccurately recalled the number of HPV shots their children received, which may contribute to low rates of vaccine initiation and completion.

Missed opportunities for HPV vaccination in adolescent girls: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify the rationale by parents/guardians and providers for delaying or administering human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to girls. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with parents/guardians accompanying their vaccine-eligible 11- to 17-year-old daughters to medical visits. Interviews were conducted in 1 public clinic and 3 private practice settings to ascertain why girls did or did not receive HPV vaccination. Questions probed vaccine decision-making from the point of view of parents/guardians and providers. RESULTS: A total of 124 parents/guardians and 37 providers participated. The most common reasons parents reported for not vaccinating their daughters was the lack of a physician recommendation (44%). Both parents and providers believed that HPV vaccination provided important health benefits, but the timing of vaccination with relation to sexual activity was an important theme related to vaccine delay. Providers with lower self-reported vaccination rates delayed vaccine recommendations in girls perceived to be at low risk for sexual activity, and several parents reported that their providers suggested or supported delaying vaccination until their daughters were older. However, parents/guardians and providers agreed that predicting the timing of sexual debut was extremely difficult. In contrast, providers with high vaccination rates presented HPV vaccination as a routine vaccine with proven safety to prevent cancer, and parents responded positively to these messages. CONCLUSIONS: Although most parents and providers believe that HPV vaccination is important, missed opportunities result from assumptions about the timing of vaccination relative to sexual activity. Routinely recommending HPV vaccination as cancer prevention to be coadministered with other vaccines at age 11 years can improve vaccination rates.