Socioeconomic disadvantage and its impact on patient satisfaction at a multi-site radiation oncology center.

Purpose: Despite the importance of patient satisfaction (PS) on healthcare outcomes, the factors that influence PS in radiation oncology remain unexplored. This study assesses the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on PS in radiation oncology, using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a measure of SES. Methods: This single-institution cross-sectional study used the National Research Council (NRC) PS survey at four radiation oncology sites from 2021 to 2023. SES was measured using ADI data from the Neighborhood Atlas. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses were conducted on recommendation scores (0-10 scale, with 9 or higher indicating a likelihood to recommend). Results: In our analysis of 7,501 survey responses, most patients were female (55.3 %), had curative treatment intent (81.5 %), and were diagnosed with breast cancer (30.4 %), with most being follow-up visits (69.0 %). Average scores for state and national ADI were 3.94 and 50.75, respectively. UVA identified factors such as curative intent (OR 1.68, p < 0.001), follow-up visits (OR 1.69, p < 0.001), and breast cancer diagnosis (OR 1.42, p = 0.018) as enhancing the likelihood of recommending the facility or provider. Those with a national ADI above the mean showed lower propensity to recommend the facility (OR 0.81, p = 0.050) or provider (OR 0.71, p = 0.002). MVA confirmed the significance of national ADI on provider recommendations (OR 0.730, p = 0.005) but not facility recommendations (OR 0.832, p = 0.089). Conclusion: Patients facing higher SES disadvantages are less inclined to recommend their healthcare provider. These results highlight the role of SES in PS assessments and advocate for further investigation into how SES impacts PS and patient-provider relationships.

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.

Understanding the Factors Influencing Health Care Provider Recommendations about Adolescent Vaccines: A Proposed Framework.

Health care provider recommendations are among the most important factors influencing parents' decisions to vaccinate their adolescents. However, delivery of high-quality health care provider recommendations for vaccination is not universal. There is wide variation in the strength, timeliness and consistency of the delivery of recommendations for all adolescent vaccines. The factors that influence health care providers' recommendations are multi-level and can be conceptualized in much the same way as vaccine acceptance among parents. Health care providers are influenced by their own attitudes and beliefs about a vaccine and also by the patient they are treating and by the community in which they practice as well as state and national level vaccine policy. We propose a multi-level framework for understanding the factors that influence health care providers' recommendations at the individual, interpersonal and community level to both develop and adapt interventions to improve providers' recommendations.

Provider-perceived barriers to patient adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underutilized in the US. Provider recommendation is strongly associated with CRC screening completion. To inform interventions aimed at improving screening uptake, we examined providers' perspectives on patient and health system barriers to CRC screening adherence, along with associated system-level interventions to improve uptake. METHODS: We conducted an online survey between November and December 2019 with a sample of primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) from a validated panel of US clinicians (814 PCCs, 159 GIs; completion rates: 25.3% for PCCs, 29.6% for GIs). Clinicians rated the extent to which each patient and health system factor interferes with patient adherence with CRC screening recommendations and the availability of practice interventions to improve screening rates. RESULTS: Provider-reported top barriers to CRC screening included patient discomfort with offered screening method (66%), cost (62-64%), and perceived low importance of screening (62%). Additional barriers included providers prioritizing urgent health concerns over screening (45-48%), not offering a choice of screening options (42-48%), lacking time to educate patients about screening (38-45%), and lacking education about available screening options (37-40%). Most frequently reported system-level interventions to improve CRC screening rates included patient education materials (57-62%) and point of care prompts (56-61%). Other interventions were less frequently reported, although variations existed by clinical specialty regarding barriers and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers to CRC screening requires system-level interventions, including provider training on shared decision-making, automated scheduling and reminder processes, and policies to increase clinician time for preventive screening consultations.

Beyond words: Parental perceptions on human papilloma virus vaccination recommendations and its impact on uptake.

The goal was to evaluate how provider recommendations regarding Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination impact uptake in a rural setting. The study used a cross-sectional, population-based design with cluster sampling to survey parents/guardians of children ages 9 to 18 in 2019 in Alabama. In addition to demographics/knowledge questions, participants were asked about type of healthcare provider recommendation and impressions they had from this interaction. The primary outcome variable was the result of the healthcare provider recommendation with options including: child got vaccinated day of recommendation, HPV vaccination was scheduled, or HPV vaccination was not scheduled. Bivariate analysis and multinomial logistic regression were performed. Of the 358 respondents, approximately 40% indicated receiving a recommendation from a provider to vaccinate their child. Age of the parent, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and health insurance coverage were similar across groups. Female parents were more likely to report receiving HPV vaccination recommendation than males (44.1% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.009). The type of provider recommendation was not significantly associated with HPV vaccination uptake. The impression from the recommendation of HPV vaccination being "important" was significantly associated with the child being vaccinated that day (OR = 7.31, 95% CI = 2.20-24.3) as well as scheduling HPV vaccination (OR = 3.17, 95% CI 1.01-9.92). Parents who got the impression that "there was no hurry" were less likely to vaccinate their child that day (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.09-0.59). Provider recommedation is well-established as a significant predictor of HPV vaccination, these findings indicate that how the recommendation is perceived may play a more important role in HPV vaccination uptake.

Provider Recommendations Are Associated with Cancer Screening of Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People: A Cross-Sectional Urban Survey.

Purpose: This study examined the relationship between clinician recommendation and receipt of cancer screenings among a transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) sample (n=58). Methods: Respondents self-identified as TGNC, age 40+ years, and residents of the Washington, D.C. area. Odds ratios were calculated to compare provider-recommended with received screenings. An open-text question asked for recommendations to improve screening experiences. Results: Provider recommendations were associated with screenings for breast, colorectal, prostate, lung, and anal cancer. Respondents cited interpersonal skills, affirming language, and clear information as important health care provider characteristics. Discussion: Participants reported being more likely to be screened if a provider recommended one regardless of evidence from current published guidelines. Conclusion: Gender identity, anatomy, and hormone exposure are critical elements that should be collected in future cancer screening research to build a stronger evidence base for provider recommendations based on population-level and individual-level risks of TGNC people.

HPV vaccination knowledge, intentions, and practices among caregivers of childhood cancer survivors.

The HPV vaccine is an important vaccine for childhood cancer survivors because of their risks of second cancers, yet few survivors receive it. We examined HPV vaccine knowledge among caregivers of childhood cancer survivors, whether their child had received the vaccine, and their intentions to vaccinate. Eligible participants were caregivers (mostly parents) whose child finished cancer treatment at Primary Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah 3 to 36 months prior to the start of the study (N = 145). Additional analyses were done among caregivers whose child was age-eligible for the HPV vaccine (ages 11 and up; N = 61). We ran descriptive statistics and fit multivariable generalized linear models to identify factors associated with intention to vaccinate and HPV vaccination uptake. Among caregivers whose child had not yet gotten the HPV vaccine, approximately 30% stated they were not likely to get the vaccine for their child and the most commonly cited reason was not enough information (25.2%). Provider discussion about vaccines and side effects (relative risk (RR) = 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.94), along with recommendations regarding vaccines after cancer treatment (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.06-1.72), led to greater caregiver intention to get the HPV vaccine for their child with cancer. Approximately 40% of age-eligible survivors had gotten at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Our findings demonstrate a need for oncology-focused interventions to educate families of childhood cancer survivors about the importance of the HPV vaccine after cancer therapy.

Parent perceptions important for HPV vaccine initiation among low income adolescent girls.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims were to assess the influence of provider recommendations on parental vaccine perceptions and identify the most potent parent vaccine perceptions for HPV vaccine series initiation considering provider recommendation strength. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire and assessed HPV vaccine claims among a stratified-random sample of parents of 9-17 year old girls enrolled in Florida's Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. Using multivariate analyses, we evaluated the associations between: (1) parent vaccine perceptions and provider recommendation strength, and (2) parent vaccine perceptions and HPV vaccine series initiation (≥1 vaccine claim or positive parental report) controlling for provider recommendation strength. RESULTS: The majority of the 2422 participating parents agreed that the HPV vaccine was safe (61%), would not make girls more likely to have sex (69%), and prevented cervical cancer (71%). About half (44%) reported receiving a strong provider recommendation. Compared to parents without recommendations, parents with strong recommendations had 2 to 7 times higher odds of agreeing that: vaccines are safe, the HPV vaccine is safe, not concerned about side effects, and the vaccine prevents cervical cancer. Even when considering provider recommendation strength, HPV vaccine series initiation was more likely among girls of parents who agreed rather than disagreed that the HPV vaccine was safe [odds ratio (OR)=5.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=3.1, 11.1], does not cause sex (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.2, 3.4), prevents cervical cancer (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.0, 3.4), and prevents HPV infections (OR=1.8, 95% CI=1.0, 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: Parent concerns about HPV vaccine are similar to their concerns about other vaccines. Providers should focus HPV vaccine discussions with parents on vaccine safety and illness prevention.

Health care provider recommendations for reducing cancer risks among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

There is a significant variation in the uptake of cancer risk reducing options by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. It is currently unclear why these differences exist and it is possible that recommendations vary between providers and these influence patient decisions. Eligible health care providers who provide genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families in Canada were identified. Each provider was asked to complete a study specific questionnaire that included their opinion of various cancer risk reduction options and their recommendations for specific cases. Respondents recommended prophylactic oophorectomy more often than prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (p < 0.0001). Fewer than half of the respondents agreed with the recommendation for prophylactic mastectomy, and a minority of the respondents supported the recommendation for tamoxifen for chemoprevention. The majority of Canadian genetics health care providers adhere to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline of recommending prophylactic oophorectomy to mutation carriers, however, the minority of genetics health care providers recommend either prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen.