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.

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.

The Impact of Altitude at Birth on Perinatal Respiratory Support for Neonates with Trisomy 21.

OBJECTIVE: Both high altitude and trisomy 21 (T21) status can negatively impact respiratory outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the association between altitude and perinatal respiratory support in neonates with T21 compared with those without T21. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used the United States all-county natality files that included live, singleton, in-hospital births from 2015 to 2019. Descriptive statistics for neonates with and without the primary outcome of sustained assisted ventilation (>6 hours) were compared using t-tests and Chi-squared analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between respiratory support and the presence of T21, and included an interaction term to determine whether the association between respiratory support and the presence of T21 was modified by elevation at delivery. RESULTS: A total of 17,939,006 neonates, 4,059 (0.02%) with T21 and 17,934,947 (99.98%) without, were included in the study. The odds of requiring sustained respiratory support following delivery were 5.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.31, 6.66), 4.06 (95% CI: 2.39, 6.89), 2.36 (95% CI: 1.64, 3.40), and 5.04 (95% CI: 1.54, 16.54) times as high for neonates with T21 than without T21 when born at low, medium, high, and very high elevations, respectively. The odds of requiring immediate ventilation support following delivery were 5.01 (95% CI: 4.59, 5.46), 5.90 (95% CI: 4.16, 8.36), 2.86 (95% CI: 2.15, 3.80), and 12.08 (95% CI: 6.78, 21.51) times as high for neonates with T21 than without T21 when born at low, medium, high, and very high elevation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Neonates with T21 have increased odds of requiring respiratory support following delivery when compared with neonates without T21 at all categories of altitude. However, the odds ratios did not increase monotonically with altitude which indicates additional research is critical in understanding the effects of altitude on neonates with T21. KEY POINTS: · Neonates with T21 have an increased need for perinatal respiratory support at all altitudes.. · The odds of needing perinatal respiratory support did not increase monotonically with elevation.. · Additional research is critical to understanding the effects of altitude on neonates with T21..

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.

MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers. METHODS: MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention. RESULTS: By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

The Risk of Resurgence in Vaccine-Preventable Infections Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Gaps in Immunization.

Nationally, immunization delivery has decreased significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Internationally, >60 national vaccine programs have been disrupted or suspended. As a result of these immunization declines, the global community is at risk for a resurgence in vaccine-preventable infections including measles, pertussis, and polio-all highly contagious diseases that result in significant morbidity and mortality in children. Measles outbreaks have already occurred in many countries that suspended their vaccination programs. Outbreaks in the United States are likely to occur when social distancing stops and children return to school. Healthcare providers have acted quickly to institute multiple risk mitigation strategies to restore vaccine administration. However, childhood immunization rates remain below pre-COVID-19 levels. Partnerships between healthcare providers, community leaders, and local, state, regional, and national public health departments are needed to reassure families that vaccine delivery during COVID-19 is safe and to identify and catch up those children who are underimmunized.

Parental vaccine hesitancy: scope, causes, and potential responses.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed the literature about parental vaccine hesitancy, focusing on publications from October 2019 to April 2021 to describe patterns and causes of hesitancy and interventions to address hesitancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies expand understanding of the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy globally and highlight associated individual and contextual factors. Common concerns underlying hesitancy include uncertainty about the need for vaccination and questions about vaccine safety and efficacy. Sociodemographic factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy vary across locations and contexts. Studies about psychology of hesitancy and how parents respond to interventions highlight the role of cognitive biases, personal values, and vaccination as a social contract or norm. Evidence-based strategies to address vaccine hesitancy include presumptive or announcement approaches to vaccine recommendations, motivational interviewing, and use of immunization delivery strategies like standing orders and reminder/recall programs. A smaller number of studies support use of social media and digital applications to improve vaccination intent. Strengthening school vaccine mandates can improve vaccination rates, but policy decisions must consider local context. SUMMARY: Vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge for child health. Future work must include more interventional studies to address hesitancy and regular global surveillance of parental vaccine hesitancy and vaccine content on social media.

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.

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.

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.

Cost and reimbursement of providing routine vaccines in outpatient obstetrician/gynecologist settings.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and reimbursement associated with running a vaccine program in 5 obstetrics/gynecology practices in Colorado that had participated in a 3-year randomized, controlled trial focused on increasing vaccination in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis on costs from 5 clinics participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention to improve vaccination rates in outpatient obstetrics/gynecology clinics in central Colorado. The intervention included designation of an immunization champion within the practice, purchasing recommended vaccines for the practice, guidance on storage and management, implementing practices for routine identification of eligible patients for vaccination using the medical record, implementation of standing orders for vaccination, and vaccine administration to patients. Data on costs were gathered from office invoices, claims data, surveys and in-person observations during the course of the trial. These data incorporated supply and personnel costs for administering vaccines to individual patients that were derived from a combination of time-motion studies of staff and provider clinical activity, and practice reports, as well as costs related to maintaining the vaccination program at the practice level, which were derived from practice reports and invoices. Cost data for personnel time during visits in which vaccination was assessed and/or discussed, but no vaccine was given to the patient were also included in the main analysis. Data on practice revenue were derived from practice reimbursement records. All costs were described in 2014 dollars. The primary analysis was the proportion of costs for the program that were reimbursed, aggregated over all years of the study and combining all vaccines and practices, separated by obstetrics vs gynecology patients. RESULTS: Collectively the 5 clinics served >40,000 patient during the study period and served a population that was 16% Medicaid. Over the 3-year observation period, there were 6573 vaccination claims made collectively by the practices (4657 for obstetric patients, 1916 for gynecology patients). The most expensive component of the program was the material costs of the vaccines themselves, which ranged from a low of $9.67 for influenza vaccines, to a high of $141.40 for human papillomavirus vaccine. Staff costs for assessing and delivering vaccines during patient visits were minimal ($0.09-$1.24 per patient visit depending on the practice and whether an obstetrics or gynecology visit was being assessed) compared with staff costs for maintaining the program at a practice level (ie, assessing inventory, ordering and stocking vaccines; $0.89-$105.89 per vaccine dose given). When assessing all costs compared with all reimbursement, we found that vaccines for obstetrics patients were reimbursed at 159% of the costs over the study period, and for gynecology patients at 97% of the costs. Overall, the vaccination program was financially favorable across the practices, averaging 125% reimbursement of costs across the three study years. CONCLUSION: Providing routine vaccines to patients in the ambulatory obstetrics/gynecology setting is generally not financially prohibitive for practices, and may even be financially beneficial, though there is variability between practices that can affect the overall reimbursement margin.

Recent advances in addressing vaccine hesitancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To offer healthcare providers current, evidence-based approaches for addressing vaccine hesitancy to increase vaccine coverage and reduce the frequency of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks. RECENT FINDINGS: Vaccine hesitancy is a growing problem with profound societal, economic, and medical consequences. Understanding the complexity of vaccine hesitancy can inform approaches to increasing vaccine uptake on both the individual and population levels. Notably, pediatricians play a critical role in increasing vaccine uptake due to their relationships with families. This doctor-patient relationship establishes trust and allows evidence-based intervention strategies to be effective in the office. Understanding potential solutions outside the office, such as media campaigns and policy changes, also provide insight into vaccine hesitancy and potential directions for future research. While pediatricians' attempts in the clinic to increase coverage remain crucial, vaccine hesitancy remains a formidable public health problem that requires attention on both the micro and macro levels to be addressed successfully. SUMMARY: Providers have an opportunity to increase both confidence in and uptake of vaccines. Public health interventions would effectively complement strategies in the clinic to increase overall coverage.

Evidence-based strategies to increase vaccination uptake: a review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize evidence-based strategies for improving pediatric immunization rates including physician behaviors, clinic and public health processes, community-based and parent-focused interventions, and legal and policy approaches RECENT FINDINGS: Studies continue to show the effectiveness of audit and feedback, provider reminders, standing orders, and reminder/recall to increase immunization rates. Provider communication strategies may improve immunization rates including use of a presumptive approach and motivational interviewing. Centralized reminder/recall (using a state Immunization Information System) is more effective and cost-effective compared to a practice-based approach. Recent work shows the success of text messages for reminder/recall for vaccination. Web-based interventions, including informational vaccine websites with interactive social media components, have shown effectiveness at increasing uptake of pediatric and maternal immunizations. Vaccination requirements for school attendance continue to be effective policy interventions for increasing pediatric and adolescent vaccination rates. Allowance for and ease of obtaining exemptions to vaccine requirements are associated with increased exemption rates. SUMMARY: Strategies to increase vaccination rates include interventions that directly impact physician behavior, clinic and public health processes, patient behaviors, and policy. Combining multiple strategies to work across different settings and addressing different barriers may offer the best approach to optimize immunization coverage.

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.

Denver Religious Leaders' Vaccine Attitudes, Practices, and Congregational Experiences.

Religious vaccine exemptions are widely available in America and increased in the past decade for unclear reasons. Religious leaders strive to influence their congregants' attitudes and practices. We sought to describe Denver religious leaders' vaccine attitudes, practices, and congregational experiences using a cross-sectional online survey. The response rate was 33% (109/334). Most respondents were Protestant, White, male, parents; 42% believed the Bible contained themes supportive of vaccination, 25% were vaccine hesitant, and only 10% had addressed vaccines in their congregations. Vaccine-hesitant religious leaders' attitudes and practices differed from those of non-hesitant leaders. Study implications and future research avenues are discussed.

Timing of Information-Seeking about Infant Vaccines.

OBJECTIVES: To assess among pregnant and recently delivered women the timing of thinking about and seeking information about childhood vaccines and the preferred modes of vaccine education. STUDY DESIGN: An e-mail survey among women in 9 urban and rural obstetrics practices in Colorado was conducted from February to April 2014, timed so that approximately one-half had delivered and one-half were still pregnant, designed to assess the frequency of thinking about and seeking information about vaccines in relation to estimated or actual delivery date. A shortened version of the Parental Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines scale was used to assess vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: The response rate was 54% (230 of 425); 56% were pregnant, 44% had delivered, and 18% were vaccine-hesitant. Compared with pregnant women, women who had delivered more often reported thinking about vaccines for their infant (pregnant: 19% often, 42% sometimes; delivered: 29% often, 51% sometimes; P < .05) and looking for information about vaccines (pregnant: 6% often, 22% sometimes; delivered: 16% often, 34% sometimes; P < .01). Women most frequently reported seeking information about vaccines 2-4 weeks after delivery, followed by 4-6 weeks after delivery. The most preferred method for vaccine education was their child's doctor (95% acceptable; 92% likely to use) followed by their obstetrician (79% acceptable; 64% likely to use). CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 weeks postdelivery appears to be when the most women seek vaccine information. A child's doctor remains the most acceptable source of vaccine education.

Facilitators and barriers to the use of standing orders for vaccination in obstetrics and gynecology settings.

BACKGROUND: Many young and middle-aged women receive their primary health care from their obstetrician-gynecologists. A recent change to vaccination recommendations during pregnancy has forced the integration of new clinical processes at obstetrician-gynecology practices. Evidence-based best practices for vaccination delivery include the establishment of vaccination standing orders. OBJECTIVES: As part of an intervention to increase adoption of evidence-based vaccination strategies for women in safety-net and private obstetrician-gynecology settings, we conducted a qualitative study to identify the facilitators and barriers experienced by obstetrician-gynecology sites when establishing vaccination standing orders. STUDY DESIGN: At 6 safety-net and private obstetrician-gynecology practices, 51 semistructured interviews were completed by trained qualitative researchers over 2 years with clinical staff and vaccination program personnel. Standardized qualitative research methods were used during data collection and team-based data analysis to identify major themes and subthemes within the interview data. RESULTS: All study practices achieved partial to full implementation of vaccine standing orders for human papillomavirus, tetanus diphtheria pertussis, and influenza vaccines. Facilitating factors for vaccine standing order adoption included process standardization, acceptance of a continual modification process, and staff training. Barriers to vaccine standing order adoption included practice- and staff-level competing demands, pregnant women's preference for medical providers to discuss vaccine information with them, and staff hesitation in determining HPV vaccine eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: With guidance and commitment to integration of new processes, obstetrician-gynecology practices are able to establish vaccine standing orders for pregnant and nonpregnant women. Attention to certain process barriers can aid the adoption of processes to support the delivery of vaccinations in obstetrician-gynecology practice setting, and provide access to preventive health care for many women.