Patient perspectives on how to demonstrate respect: Implications for clinicians and healthcare organizations.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians and healthcare organizations are ethically obligated to treat patients with respect, yet it is not clear what actions best demonstrate respect to patients. This exploratory qualitative study aimed to understand what actions on both an individual and organizational level effectively demonstrate respect for primary care patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with primary care patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Oregon and an integrated safety net health system in Colorado who were participating in a genomics implementation research study of a hereditary cancer screening program. We systematically coded interview transcripts using a coding framework developed based on iterative review of the interview guide and transcripts. We further analyzed the data coded with sub-codes relating to patients' experiences with respect in healthcare using a descriptive content analysis approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 English-speaking (n = 30, 75%) and Spanish-speaking (n = 10, 25%) patients. Most interviewees identified as female (n = 35, 88%) and either Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 17, 43%) or White or European American (n = 15, 38%). Interviewees identified two categories of efforts by individual clinicians that demonstrate respect: engaging with patients and being transparent. They identified five efforts by healthcare organizations: promoting safety and inclusivity, protecting patient privacy, communicating about scheduling, navigating financial barriers to care, and ensuring continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients' experiences of respect depend on efforts by individual clinicians as well as healthcare organizations. Our findings offer insight into how clinicians can build stronger partnerships with patients and how organizations can seek to promote access to care and patient safety and comfort. They also illustrate areas for future research and quality improvement to more effectively respect patients.

Impact of Childhood Vaccine Discussion Format Over Time on Immunization Status.

OBJECTIVE: Presumptive formats to initiate childhood vaccine discussions (eg, "Well, we have to do some shots") have been associated with increased vaccine acceptance after one visit compared to participatory formats (eg, "How do you feel about vaccines?"). We characterize discussion format patterns over time and the impact of their repeated use on vaccine acceptance. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal prospective cohort study of children of vaccine-hesitant parents enrolled in a Seattle-based integrated health system. After the child's 2-, 4-, and 6-month visits, parents reported the format their child's provider used to begin the vaccine discussion (presumptive, participatory, or other). Our outcome was the percentage of days underimmunized of the child at 8 months old for 6 recommended vaccines. We used linear regression and generalized estimating equations to test the association of discussion format and immunization status. RESULTS: We enrolled 73 parent-child dyads and obtained data from 82%, 73%, and 53% after the 2-, 4-, and 6-month visits, respectively. Overall, 65% of parents received presumptive formats at ≥1 visit and 42% received participatory formats at ≥1 visit. Parental receipt of presumptive formats at 1 and ≥2 visits (vs no receipt) was associated with significantly less underimmunization of the child, while receipt of participatory formats at ≥2 visits was associated with significantly more underimmunization. Visit-specific use of participatory (vs presumptive) formats was associated with a child being 10.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.3, 19.8; P = .04) more days underimmunized (amounting to, on average, 98 more days underimmunized for all 6 vaccines combined). CONCLUSIONS: Presumptive (vs participatory) discussion formats are associated with increased immunization.

The relationship between parent attitudes about childhood vaccines survey scores and future child immunization status: a validation study.

IMPORTANCE: Acceptance of childhood vaccinations is waning, amplifying interest in developing and testing interventions that address parental barriers to immunization acceptance. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity and test-retest reliability of the Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines survey (PACV), a recently developed measure of vaccine hesitancy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort of English-speaking parents of children aged 2 months and born from July 10 through December 10, 2010, who belonged to an integrated health care delivery system based in Seattle and who returned a completed baseline PACV. Parents who completed a follow-up survey 8 weeks later were included in the reliability analysis. Parents who remained continuous members in the delivery system until their child was 19 months old were included in the validity analysis. EXPOSURE: The PACV, scored on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 indicates high vaccine hesitancy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Child's immunization status as measured by the percentage of days underimmunized from birth to 19 months of age. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven parents completed the baseline PACV (response rate, 50.5%), and 220 (66.5%) completed the follow-up survey. Of the 437 parents who completed a baseline survey, 310 (70.9%) maintained continuous enrollment. Compared with parents who scored less than 50, parents who scored 50 to 69 on the survey had children who were underimmunized for 8.3% (95% CI, 3.6%-12.8%) more days from birth to 19 months of age; those who scored 70 to 100, 46.8% (40.3%-53.3%) more days. Baseline and 8-week follow-up PACV scores were highly concordant (ρ = 0.844). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Scores on the PACV predict childhood immunization status and have high reliability. Our results should be validated in different geographic and demographic samples of parents.

Washington State pediatricians' attitudes toward alternative childhood immunization schedules.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of parents' requests for alternative childhood immunization schedules (ACISs) and pediatricians' comfort with and willingness to use ACISs. METHODS: Washington State primary care pediatricians were asked to complete an Internet-based survey on ACISs. The main outcome measures were the frequency of parents' requests for ACISs, pediatricians' comfort with their use, and pediatricians' willingness to use ACISs for individual vaccines. In addition, respondents were asked to characterize their practices and to provide demographic information. RESULTS: Of the 311 respondents (response rate: 65%), 209 met inclusion criteria and were included in analyses. Overall, 77% of eligible respondents reported that parents sometimes or frequently requested ACISs, and 61% were comfortable using an ACIS if requested by a parent. Pediatricians were least willing to consider using ACISs for diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine, Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatricians who practiced in a neighborhood or community clinic were less comfortable using ACISs than were those in a 1- or 2-physician practice (odds ratio: 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Washington State pediatricians are regularly being asked to use ACISs, and most of them are comfortable using them if requested. Pediatricians are least willing to delay H influenzae type b vaccine, diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccine, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which suggests prioritization of immunizations that protect against potentially devastating bacterial infections of infancy and early childhood.