Survey of Physician Practices, Attitudes, and Knowledge Regarding Recombinant Zoster Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster vaccination rates remain low despite longstanding national recommendations to vaccinate immunocompetent adults aged ≥ 50 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) updated its recommendations for recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in October 2021 to include immunocompromised adults aged ≥19 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices, attitudes, and knowledge about RZV, barriers to recommending RZV, and likelihood of recommending RZV to patients with various immunocompromising conditions. DESIGN: Mail and internet-based survey conducted from May through July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Survey responses. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (632/955). Many physicians were already recommending RZV to immunocompromised populations, including adults ≥50 years with HIV (67% of respondents) and on recombinant human immune modulator therapy (56%). Forty-seven percent of respondents both stocked/administered RZV and referred patients elsewhere, frequently a pharmacy, for vaccination; 42% did not stock RZV and only referred patients. The majority agreed pharmacies do not inform them when RZV has been given (64%). Physicians were generally knowledgeable about RZV; however, 25% incorrectly thought experiencing side effects from the first dose of RZV that interfere with normal activities was a reason to not receive the second dose. The top reported barrier to recommending RZV was experience with patients declining RZV due to cost concerns (67%). Most physicians reported they would be likely to recommend RZV to immunocompromised patients. CONCLUSION: Most primary care physicians welcome updated ACIP RZV recommendations for immunocompromised adults. Knowledge gaps, communication issues, and financial barriers need to be addressed to optimize vaccination delivery.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

Measles Experience, Practice, and Knowledge by Pediatricians in the Context of Resurgent US Outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE: To assess measles experience, practice, and knowledge by pediatricians in the context of resurgent US outbreaks in 2018-2019. STUDY DESIGN: A nationally representative network of pediatricians were surveyed by email and mail from January to April 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). In the 3 years preceding the survey, 52% of the respondents reported awareness of measles cases in/near their community. Most thought that media reports about recent measles outbreaks had decreased delay/refusal of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (6% "greatly decreased"; 66% "moderately decreased"). More than 60% of the pediatricians responded correctly for 6 of 9 true/false measles knowledge items. Less than 50% responded correctly for 3 true/false items, including statements about pretravel MMR recommendations for a preschooler and measles isolation precautions. The most common resources that the pediatricians would "sometimes" or "often/always" consult for measles information were those from the American Academy of Pediatrics (72%), a state or local public health department (70%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (63%). More than 90% of the pediatricians reported correct clinical practice for MMR vaccination of a 9-month-old before international travel. More than one-third of the respondents did not have a plan for measles exposures in their clinic. Pediatricians aware of measles cases in/near their community in the previous 3 years and those working in a hospital/clinic or Health Maintenance Organization setting were more likely to have a plan for measles exposures. CONCLUSIONS: During this time of heightened risk for measles outbreaks, there are opportunities to strengthen the knowledge and implementation of measles pretravel vaccination and infection prevention and control recommendations among pediatricians.

Pediatricians' Knowledge and Practices Related to Mumps Diagnosis and Prevention.

OBJECTIVES: To assess pediatricians' mumps knowledge and testing practices, to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with mumps testing practices, and to assess reporting and outbreak response knowledge and practices. STUDY DESIGN: Between January and April 2020, we surveyed a nationally representative network of pediatricians. Descriptive statistics were generated for all items. The χ2 test, t tests, and Poisson regression were used to compare physician and practice characteristics between respondents who would rarely or never versus sometimes or often/always test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). For knowledge, more than one-half of the pediatricians responded incorrectly or "don't know" for 6 of the 9 true/false statements about mumps epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention, and more than one-half reported needing additional guidance on mumps buccal swab testing. For testing practices, 59% of respondents reported they would sometimes (35%) or often/always (24%) test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting; older physicians, rural physicians, and physicians from the Northeast or Midwest were more likely to test for mumps. Thirty-six percent of the pediatricians reported they would often/always report a patient with suspected mumps to public health authorities. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians report mumps knowledge gaps and practices that do not align with public health recommendations. These gaps may lead to underdiagnosis and underreporting of mumps cases, delaying public health response measures and contributing to ongoing disease transmission.

Changes in Strength of Recommendation and Perceived Barriers to Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Longitudinal Analysis of Primary Care Physicians, 2008-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate among pediatricians and family physicians human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommendation practices for 11- to 12-year-old youth; report parental refusal/deferral of HPV vaccination; and report barriers to HPV vaccination changed over time. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians and family physicians in 2008, 2010, 2013-2014, and 2018. Male vaccination questions were not asked in 2008; barriers and parental vaccine refusal questions were not asked in 2010. RESULTS: Response rates were 80% in 2008 (680/848), 72% in 2010 (609/842), 70% in 2013-2014 (582/829), and 65% in 2018 (588/908). The proportion of physicians strongly recommending HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old patients increased from 53% in 2008 to 79% in 2018 for female patients and from 48% in 2014 to 76% in 2018 for male patients (both P < .0001). The proportion of physicians indicating ≥50% of parents refused/deferred HPV vaccination remained steady for female patients (24% in 2008 vs 22% in 2018, P = .40) and decreased for male patients (42% in 2014 vs 28% in 2018, P < .001). Physician barriers to providing HPV vaccination were rare and decreased over time. Increasing numbers of physicians reported perceived parental barriers of vaccine safety concerns (5% "major barrier" in 2008 vs 35% in 2018, P < .0001) and moral/religious concerns (5% in 2008 vs 25% in 2018, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2008 and 2018, more primary care physicians reported recommending HPV vaccination for adolescents, fewer reported barriers, and more physicians reported parents who had vaccine safety or moral/religious concerns.

Shared Clinical Decision-Making Recommendations for Adult Immunization: What Do Physicians Think?

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology "shared clinical decision-making" (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines. OBJECTIVE: To assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM. DESIGN: Survey conducted in October 2019-January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference. PARTICIPANTS: Networks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships. MAIN MEASURES: Responses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of "not knowing how to implement SDM" conducted. KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as "recommended" and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15-1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02-1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendations CONCLUSIONS: To be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians.

Use of High-Dose Influenza and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines by US Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Several different types of influenza vaccine are licensed for use in adults in the USA including high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). HD-IIV is licensed for use in adults ≥ 65 years, and recommendations for use of LAIV have changed several times in recent years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine family physicians' (FPs) and general internal medicine physicians' (GIMs) perceptions, knowledge, and practices for use of HD-IIV and LAIV during the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons. DESIGN: E-mail and mail surveys conducted February-March 2017, January-February 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative samples of FPs and GIMs. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys assessed HD-IIV practices (2017), knowledge and perceptions (2019), and LAIV knowledge and practices (2017, 2019). KEY RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (620/930) in 2017 and 69% (642/926) in 2019. Many physicians believed HD-IIV is more effective than standard dose IIV in patients ≥ 65 years (76%) and reported their patients ≥ 65 years believe they need HD-IIV (67%). Most respondents incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years (88%); 65% "almost always/always" recommended HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years. Some physicians incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults < 65 years with cardiopulmonary disease (38%) or immunosuppression (48%); some respondents recommended HD-IIV for these groups (25% and 28% respectively). In 2017, 88% of respondents knew that ACIP recommended against using LAIV during the 2016-2017 influenza season, and 4% recommended LAIV to patients. In 2019, 63% knew that ACIP recommended that LAIV could be used during the 2018-2019 influenza season, and 8% recommended LAIV. CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians incorrectly thought ACIP had preferential recommendations for HD-IIV. Physicians should be encouraged to use any available age-appropriate influenza vaccine to optimize influenza vaccination particularly among older adults and patients with chronic conditions who are more vulnerable to severe influenza disease.

Survey of Adult Influenza Vaccination Practices and Perspectives Among US Primary Care Providers (2016-2017 Influenza Season).

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for all adults; however, little is known about how primary care physicians can communicate effectively with patients about influenza vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To assess among general internal medicine (GIM) and family physicians (FP) regarding adult influenza vaccination: (1) recommendation and administration practices, (2) barriers to discussing and perceived reasons for patient refusal, and (3) factors associated with physician self-efficacy in convincing patients to be vaccinated. DESIGN: Email and mail survey conducted in February-March 2017 PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of GIM and FP MAIN MEASURES: Factor analysis was used to group similar items for multivariable analysis of barriers and strategies associated with high physician self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated (defined as disagreeing that they could do nothing to change resistant patients' minds). KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 67% (620/930). Ninety-eight percent always/almost always recommended influenza vaccine to adults ≥ 65 years, 90% for adults 50-64 years, and 75% for adults 19-49 years. Standing orders (76%) and electronic alerts (64%) were the most commonly used practice-based immunization strategies. Frequently reported barriers to discussing vaccination were other health issues taking precedence (41%), time (29%), and feeling they were unlikely to change patients' minds (24%). Fifty-eight percent of physicians reported high self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated; these providers reported fewer patient belief barriers contributing to vaccine refusal (RR = 0.93 per item; 95% CI (0.89-0.98); Cronbach's α = 0.70), were more likely to report using both fact- (1.08/item; (1.03-1.14); 0.66) and personal experience-based (1.07/item; (1.003-1.15); 0.65) communication strategies, and were more likely to work in practices using patient reminders for influenza vaccine (1.32; (1.16-1.50)). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians identified barriers to successfully communicating about adult influenza vaccination but few effective strategies to counter them. Interventions to promote self-efficacy in communication and under-utilized practice-based immunization strategies are needed.

U.S. physicians' perspective of adult vaccine delivery.

BACKGROUND: Adults are at substantial risk for vaccine-preventable disease, but their vaccination rates remain low. OBJECTIVE: To assess practices for assessing vaccination status and stocking recommended vaccines, barriers to vaccination, characteristics associated with reporting financial barriers to delivering vaccines, and practices regarding vaccination by alternate vaccinators. DESIGN: Mail and Internet-based survey. SETTING: Survey conducted from March to June 2012. PARTICIPANTS: General internists and family physicians throughout the United States. MEASUREMENTS: A financial barriers scale was created. Multivariable linear modeling for each specialty was performed to assess associations between a financial barrier score and physician and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were 79% (352 of 443) for general internists and 62% (255 of 409) for family physicians. Twenty-nine percent of general internists and 32% of family physicians reported assessing vaccination status at every visit. A minority used immunization information systems (8% and 36%, respectively). Almost all respondents reported assessing need for and stocking seasonal influenza; pneumococcal; tetanus and diphtheria; and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccines. However, fewer assessed and stocked other recommended vaccines. The most commonly reported barriers were financial. Characteristics significantly associated with reporting greater financial barriers included private practice setting, fewer than 5 providers in the practice, and, for general internists only, having more patients with Medicare Part D. The most commonly reported reasons for referring patients elsewhere included lack of insurance coverage for the vaccine (55% for general internists and 62% for family physicians) or inadequate reimbursement (36% and 41%, respectively). Patients were most often referred to pharmacies/retail stores and public health departments. LIMITATIONS: Surveyed physicians may not be representative of all physicians. CONCLUSION: Improving adult vaccination delivery will require increased use of evidence-based methods for vaccination delivery and concerted efforts to resolve financial barriers, especially for smaller practices and for general internists who see more patients with Medicare Part D. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Reducing asthma attacks in disadvantaged school children with asthma: study protocol for a type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial (Better Asthma Control for Kids, BACK).

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a leading cause of children's hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and missed school days. Our school-based asthma intervention has reduced asthma exacerbations for children experiencing health disparities in the Denver Metropolitan Area, due partly to addressing care coordination for asthma and social determinants of health (SDOH), such as access to healthcare and medications. Limited dissemination of school-based asthma programs has occurred in other metropolitan and rural areas of Colorado. We formed and engaged community advisory boards in socioeconomically diverse regions of Colorado to develop two implementation strategy packages for delivering our school-based asthma intervention - now termed "Better Asthma Control for Kids (BACK)" - with tailoring to regional priorities, needs and resources. METHODS: In this proposed type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial, where the primary goal is equitable reach to families to reduce asthma disparities, we will compare two different packages of implementation strategies to deliver BACK across four Colorado regions. The two implementation packages to be compared are: 1) standard set of implementation strategies including Tailor and Adapt to context, Facilitation and Training termed, BACK-Standard (BACK-S); 2) BACK-S plus an enhanced implementation strategy, that incorporates network weaving with community partners and consumer engagement with school families, termed BACK-Enhanced (BACK-E). Our evaluation will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, including its Pragmatic Robust Implementation Sustainability Model (PRISM) determinants of implementation outcomes. Our central hypothesis is that our BACK-E implementation strategy will have significantly greater reach to eligible children/families than BACK-S (primary outcome) and that both BACK-E and BACK-S groups will have significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates ("attacks") and improved asthma control as compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: We expect both the BACK-S and BACK-E strategy packages will accelerate dissemination of our BACK program across the state - the comparative impact of BACK-S vs. BACK-E on reach and other RE-AIM outcomes may inform strategy selection for scaling BACK and other effective school-based programs to address chronic illness disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT06003569, registered on August 22, 2023, https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT06003569 .

Understanding Core Community Needs for School-Based Asthma Programming: A Qualitative Assessment in Colorado Communities.

Objectives: Asthma is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions affecting approximately 8.5% of children in Colorado. Our school-based asthma program (SBAP) has effectively improved asthma control and reduced asthma disparities among children but has been largely limited to the Denver area. We interviewed community stakeholders in 5 regions of Colorado to understand community needs for broader dissemination of SBAPs. Methods: In-depth, semistructured key informant interviews were conducted with school nurses, parents, pediatric healthcare providers, public health professionals, and community resource organization representatives. Inductive and deductive analyses were informed by the practical, robust, implementation, and sustainability model, an implementation science framework. Results: Participants (n=52) identified 6 types of needs for successful future implementation of our SBAP: (1) buy-in from stakeholders; (2) asthma prioritization; (3) improved relationships, communication, and coordination among school nurses, healthcare providers, and community organizations that address social determinants of health (SDOH) and children/families; (4) resources to address healthcare and SDOH needs and awareness of existing resources; (5) asthma education for children/families, school staff, and community members; and (6) improved coordination for School Asthma Care Plan completion. These needs mapped to a 3-tiered, progressive structure of foundational, relational, and functional needs for implementation success. Conclusion: These 6 types of needs illuminate factors that will allow this SBAP to work well and program delivery approaches and implementation strategies that may need modification to be successful. Next steps should include tailoring implementation strategies to variations in local context to support fit, effectiveness, and sustainment.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9-12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices. RESULTS: There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening. CONCLUSIONS: Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

Why Aren't We Achieving High Vaccination Rates for Rotavirus Vaccine in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine (RV) coverage levels for US infants are <80%. METHODS: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians by internet/mail from April to June, 2019. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with difficulty administering the first RV dose (RV#1) by the maximum age. RESULTS: Response rate was 68% (303/448). Ninety-nine percent of providers reported strongly recommending RV. The most common barriers to RV delivery overall (definite/somewhat of a barrier) were: parental concerns about vaccine safety overall (27%), parents wanting to defer (25%), parents not thinking RV was necessary (12%), and parent concerns about RV safety (6%). The most commonly reported reasons for nonreceipt of RV#1 by 4 to 5 months (often/always) were parental vaccine refusal (9%), hospitals not giving RV at discharge from nursery (7%), infants past the maximum age when discharged from neonatal intensive care unit/nursery (6%), and infant not seen before maximum age for well care visit (3%) or seen but no vaccine given (4%). Among respondents 4% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed that they sometimes have difficulty giving RV#1 before the maximum age. Higher percentage of State Child Health Insurance Program/Medicaid-insured children in the practice and reporting that recommendations for timing of RV doses are too complicated were associated with reporting difficulty delivering the RV#1 by the maximum age. CONCLUSIONS: US pediatricians identified multiple, actionable issues that may contribute to suboptimal RV immunization rates including lack of vaccination prior to leaving nurseries after prolonged stays, infants not being seen for well care visits by the maximum age, missed opportunities at visits and parents refusing/deferring.

US Primary Care Providers' Experiences and Practices Related to Routine Pediatric Vaccination During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe, among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs), 1) changes made to routine childhood vaccination delivery as a result of the pandemic, and 2) perceived barriers to delivering vaccinations from March 2020 through the time of the survey. METHODS: A nationally representative survey among Peds and FPs was administered by mail or Internet in October-December 2020. RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (579/909). For children aged 0 to 2 years, among those who vaccinated that age group prepandemic (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 222), 5% of Peds and 15% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating these children at any time. For children aged 4 to 6 years (Peds n=264, FPs n = 229), 19% of Peds and 17% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. For children aged 11-18 years (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 251), 24% of Peds and 19% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. Nearly all reported returning to prepandemic vaccination services at the time of the survey. Factors most frequently reported as major/moderate barriers to providing vaccinations included fewer in-person visits because patients/parents were concerned about risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Peds, 52%; FPs, 54%), fewer in-person visits for sports clearance (Peds, 39%; FPs, 44%), and fewer back-to-school in-person visits because some children were in virtual learning (Peds, 25%; FPs, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: Although some physicians reported interrupting vaccination services at some point during the pandemic, the majority reported continuing to provide vaccinations throughout, with essentially all returning to prepandemic vaccination services by end of 2020.

Physician attitudes regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Adult Immunization Schedule.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created out of the need to formalize vaccine recommendations for the United States. Annually, ACIP delivers recommendations to the CDC director for guidance about United States vaccine use and publishes the Adult Immunization Schedule. Updated schedules feature changes to vaccine recommendations as well as changes to the schedule's usability for physicians. The objective of this study was to determine physicians' attitudes about the Adult Immunization Schedule. Surveys were administered to a sentinel physician network from October 2019 through January 2020. Physicians that responded were comfortable using the Adult Immunization Schedule, but reported confusion about some medical condition-based indications. Physicians reported a lack engagement with mobile applications, CDC Vaccine Schedules and Shots by STFM (the Society for Teachers of Family Medicine). Future work should focus on increasing clarity regarding the recommendations with medical condition-based indications and increasing knowledge of mobile applications for physicians.

Physician survey regarding updated PCV13 vaccine recommendations for adults ≥65 years.

BACKGROUND: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended discontinuing the routine use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among adults aged ≥65 years and instead recommended PCV13 be used based on shared clinical decision making (SCDM). OBJECTIVES: We wanted to assess among primary care physicians (1) knowledge and attitudes regarding the new SCDM PCV13 recommendation and (2) how the new recommendation will affect their likelihood of recommending PCV13 to adults aged ≥65 years. DESIGN: This was done by mail and internet-based survey, which was conducted October 2019 through January 2020. The study was carried out on a nationally representative sample of general internists (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs). RESULTS: The response rate was 64% (617/968, GIM 57%, FP 71%). Only 41% of respondents were aware of the SCDM PCV13 recommendation in adults aged ≥65 years; 76% agreed (37% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") that their patients aged ≥65 years will get confused by having a SCDM recommendation for PCV13 and a routine recommendation for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23); 60% agreed (18% "Strongly," 42% "Somewhat") that they were unsure of what points to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation with an adult aged ≥65 years about receiving PCV13. Just over 50% reported they would be less likely to recommend PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years as a result of the new recommendation, but 42% reported that their recommendation for PCV13 would not change. CONCLUSIONS: Word of the new ACIP recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years needs to be further disseminated. Investigation into why some physicians do not plan to change their recommendations is warranted.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspective on Pharmacists Delivering Vaccines to Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2009, pharmacists in all 50 states have been authorized to provide vaccinations to adults. The objective of this study was to assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) experiences with and attitudes about pharmacists administering vaccinations. METHODS: Internet and mail survey of PCPs representative of American College of Physicians' and American Academy of Family Physicians' memberships. RESULTS: Response rate was 69% (642/926). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed (79% "Strongly," 19% "Somewhat") that it is their responsibility to assure their adult patients receive recommended vaccinations. Most respondents agreed that pharmacists either did not have access to patient medical information (33% "Strongly," 45% "Somewhat") or did not have adequate vaccination history (33% "Strongly," 41% "Somewhat"). The majority also agreed that pharmacists did not inform them when vaccinations were given (35% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") and did not enter vaccinations administered into immunization information systems (IISs) (20% "Strongly," 37% "Somewhat"). However, 83% agreed (31% "Strongly," 52% "Somewhat") that it is helpful to have pharmacists share the role of vaccinating adults. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs have mixed feelings about pharmacists delivering vaccines. Universal use of IISs by pharmacists could partially address physicians' concerns by providing a systematic way for pharmacists and physicians to share patient vaccination histories.

US Primary Care Physicians' Viewpoints on HPV Vaccination for Adults 27 to 45 Years.

INTRODUCTION: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended shared clinical decision making (SCDM) regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians 1) recent practice regarding HPV vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years, 2) knowledge of HPV and the new SCDM recommendation, and 3) attitudes toward and anticipated effect of the new SCDM recommendation. METHODS: From October to December 2019, we administered an Internet and mail survey to national networks of 494 general internist (GIM) and 474 family physician (FP) members of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians, respectively. RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (617/968; GIM, 57%; FP, 71%). Fifty-eight percent were aware of the new ACIP recommendation; 42% had recommended HPV vaccination to adults 27 to 45 years, but most had administered HPV vaccine to very few of these patients (73% to 0% and 22% to 1 to 3). Fifty-five percent and 63% were unaware that HPV vaccination does not prevent progression of existing HPV-related cancers or infections, respectively and 57% were not sure what to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation about HPV vaccination. A majority reported they will be more likely recommend HPV vaccination to adults in the 27-to-45-year age range as a result of the new recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are interested in recommending HPV vaccination for adults age 27 to 45 years despite ACIP not routinely recommending it in this age range. The majority need more education about the optimal use of HPV vaccine in this age group.

Primary care physician knowledge, attitudes, and diagnostic testing practices for norovirus and acute gastroenteritis.

BACKGROUND: Norovirus is a leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) across the age spectrum; candidate vaccines are in clinical trials. While norovirus diagnostic testing is increasingly available, stool testing may not be performed routinely, which can hamper surveillance and burden of disease estimates. Additionally, lack of knowledge of the burden of disease may inhibit provider vaccine recommendations, which could affect coverage rates and ultimately the impact of the vaccine. Our objectives were to understand physicians' stool testing practices in outpatients with AGE, and physician knowledge of norovirus, in order to improve surveillance and prepare for vaccine introduction. METHODS: Internet and mail survey on AGE, norovirus, and future norovirus vaccines conducted January to March 2018 among national networks of primary care pediatricians, family practice and general internal medicine physicians. RESULTS: The response rate was 59% (820/1383). During peak AGE season, physicians estimated they ordered stool tests for a median of 15% (interquartile range: 5-33%) of their outpatients with AGE. Stool tests were reported as more often available for ova and parasites, Clostridioides difficile, and bacterial culture (>95% for all specialties) than for norovirus (6-33% across specialties); even when available, norovirus-specific tests were infrequently ordered. Most providers were unaware that norovirus is a leading cause of AGE across all age groups (Pediatricians 80%, Family Practice 86%, General Internal Medicine 89%) or that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are ineffective against norovirus (Pediatricians 51%, Family Practice 66%, General Internal Medicine 62%). Concerns cited as major barriers to implementing a future norovirus vaccine included if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (General Internal Medicine 64%, Pediatricians 67%, Family Practice 74%) and lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination (Pediatricians 43%, General Internal Medicine 46%, Family Practice 50%). Factors that providers believed were 'not at all a barrier' or 'minor barrier' to new vaccine introduction included the belief that "my patients won't need this vaccine" (General Internal Medicine 78%, Family Practice 86%, Pediatricians 90%) and "my patients already get too many vaccines" (Family Practice 89%, General Internal Medicine 92%, Pediatricians 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians had few concerns regarding future norovirus vaccine introduction, but have knowledge gaps on norovirus prevalence and hand hygiene for prevention. Also, physicians infrequently order stool tests for outpatients with AGE, which limits surveillance estimates that rely on physician-ordered stool diagnostics. Closing physician knowledge gaps on norovirus burden and transmission can help support norovirus vaccine introduction.

Pediatricians' Experiences With and Perceptions of the Vaccines for Children Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) provides vaccines for children who may not otherwise be vaccinated because of financial barriers. Pediatrician participation is crucial to the VFC's ongoing success. Our objectives were to assess, among a national sample of pediatricians, (1) VFC program participation, (2) perceived burden versus benefit of participation, and (3) knowledge and perception of a time-limited increased payment for VFC vaccine administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. METHODS: An electronic and mail survey was conducted from June 2017 to September 2017. RESULTS: Response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 86% of pediatricians reported currently participating in the VFC; among those, 85% reported never having considered stopping, 10% considered it but not seriously, and 5% seriously considered it. Among those who had considered no longer participating (n = 47), the most commonly reported reasons included difficulty meeting VFC record-keeping requirements (74%), concern about action by the VFC for noncompliance (61%), and unpredictable VFC vaccine supplies (59%). Participating pediatricians rated, on a scale from -5 (high burden) to +5 (high benefit), their overall perception of the VFC: 63% reported +4 or +5, 23% reported +1 to +3, 5% reported 0, and 9% reported -1 to -5. Of pediatricians, 39% reported awareness of temporary increased payment for VFC vaccine administration. Among those, 10% reported that their practice increased the proportion of Medicaid and/or VFC-eligible patients served on the basis of this change. CONCLUSIONS: For most pediatricians, perceived benefits of VFC participation far outweigh perceived burdens. To ensure the program's ongoing success, it will be important to monitor factors influencing provider participation.