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.

Prevalence and Predictors of Pediatric COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance.

OBJECTIVE: As pediatric COVID-19 vaccine eligibility expands, understanding predictors of vaccine intent is critical to effectively address parental concerns. Objectives included: (1) Evaluate maternal COVID-19 vaccine intent for child(ren) and associated predictors of stated intent; (2) Describe attitudes related to hypothetical vaccination policies; (3) Summarize themes associated with intention to vaccinate child(ren) for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Mothers enrolled in Heath eMoms, a longitudinal survey project, were recruited for this electronic COVID-19 survey. Chi-square analysis was used to compare proportions of respondent characteristics based on vaccination intent. Population survey logistic regression was used for multivariable modeling to assess the independent association between vaccine intent and demographics. RESULTS: The response rate was 65.3% (n = 1884); 44.2% would choose vaccination, 20.3% would not choose vaccination, and 35.5% are unsure whether to have their child(ren) vaccinated for COVID-19. Black mothers (AOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13, 0.54), respondents with less than high school education (AOR 0.26, 95% 0.12, 0.56) and those in rural areas (AOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16, 0.48) were less likely to choose vaccination. Commonly cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy include the belief that the vaccine was not tested enough, is not safe, and there are concerns regarding its side effects. CONCLUSION: Over 50% of respondents do not intend or are unsure about their intent to vaccinate their child(ren) for COVID-19 with variability noted by demographics. Opportunities exist for perinatal and pediatric providers to educate pregnant people, parents, and caregivers with a focus on addressing concerns regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. KEY POINTS: · COVID-19 vaccination rates remain suboptimal, especially in the pediatric population, with variation across states.. · We found that the prevalence of vaccine acceptance for young children is low.. · We highlight opportunities for providers to educate parents, focusing on addressing vaccine safety and efficacy..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Activities, Motivations and Demographics of Provaccine Advocates.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health concern and has been classified as a major threat to global health by the World Health Organization. While there has been extensive research on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals, little is known about provaccination advocates. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics, attitudes, activities and motivations of provaccination advocates. METHODS: An internet survey was conducted in July-November 2019. US vaccine advocacy groups were invited to partner in survey distribution. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of their members. Advocacy activities were categorized as policy related, in-person or online. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 1239) were mostly female (82%), White (87%) and highly educated (90%). Most reported Democratic political affiliation (66%). The most common occupation was health care practitioner (38%). Most respondents (90%) agreed that a policy that did not allow patients to refuse or spread-out vaccines would encourage them to choose that clinic. The most common policy-related activity was contacting an elected official about vaccines. The most common in-person activity was speaking with a friend or family member about vaccines. The most reported online activity was using social media to advocate for vaccines. The most common motivation for vaccine advocacy was a sense of responsibility as a community member. CONCLUSIONS: Provaccine individuals engaged in a variety of advocacy activities and were motivated by responsibility to their community in addition to other factors. Continued work to better understand and motivate vaccine advocates may inform efforts to bolster vaccine confidence and influence those who accept vaccines to become advocates.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake.

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

"But then that's another barrier": A qualitative study of parent and provider perspectives on rural versus urban disparities in adolescent vaccination.

PURPOSE: Vaccination rates are significantly lower among adolescents living in rural areas compared to those living in urban areas. The objective of this study was to understand the factors contributing to disparities in vaccination between adolescents in rural compared to urban areas. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with parents and providers in 16 rural and 4 urban counties of Colorado. Interview questions followed the socioecological model of health and addressed personal, interpersonal, community, and environment/structural barriers and facilitators that impact adolescent vaccination rates. Qualitative content analysis with a directed content analysis approach was used. Urban and rural interviews were compared to identify barriers unique to rural communities. FINDINGS: Reported barriers included lack of vaccine access at primary care, lack of routine preventive care utilization, the need to take off time from work and school, and misinformation about vaccines. Barriers that were unique to rural communities included structural barriers such as lack of evening and weekend appointments, providers not stocking vaccines, short provider tenures, and costs; logistical barriers such as the need for multiple visits to multiple locations and distance and travel time; and beliefs and behaviors such as an overreliance on sports physicals (in lieu of preventive visits) and natural lifestyle cultures. CONCLUSIONS: There are unique challenges to adolescent vaccination in rural areas that contribute to fewer adolescents receiving their recommended vaccines. Addressing structural barriers may address this disparity.

COVID Just-in-Time Extension for Community Health Outcomes: A Collaborative Information-Sharing Platform for a School Health Community.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged school health professionals to navigate a dynamic public health emergency and to stay aware of changing recommendations. This study aimed to determine the value of the COVID Just-in-Time ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes) Learning Series for Schools among participating school health personnel and to describe their ongoing information needs during the pandemic. School health, public health, and education professionals across Colorado participated in this ECHO series. Participants attended 1-hour sessions every 2 to 4 weeks from March 2020 through December 2021 for a total of 34 sessions. Data collection included postsession and postseries surveys assessing what participants found most valuable and what additional information they needed. School nurses represented 113 of 224 participants (50%). ECHO content noted as being the most valuable included epidemiology updates and special topics as chosen by participant input. Postseries surveys identified the value of experiencing shared knowledge among Just-in-Time ECHO participants. Participants identified ongoing needs for information about COVID-19 guidance and risk mitigation in schools throughout the sessions. In postseries surveys, participants reported additional ongoing information needs related to COVID-19 outside schools. This ECHO series delivered reliable and time-sensitive information for school health personnel and school leaders and may provide a useful model for information sharing among education and public health professionals.

Vaccine communication training using the Brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunization intervention: A PRISM implementation evaluation.

Improving clinician-patient communication can increase uptake of recommended vaccinations during pregnancy. To evaluate adaptations to and pragmatism of the brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention and to use the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to describe context and implementation outcomes among clinician and staff participants. We incorporated data from study team members, clinicians and staff participants, pregnant patients at participating clinics, and patient medical records. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using surveys, chart reviews, study team notes, interviews, and focus groups. Adaptations were evaluated using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) and pragmatism was measured with PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2). MI4MI was effective at improving participants' vaccine communication experiences. Adoption was limited by our recruitment approach. MI4MI implementation was shaped by contextual factors and associated adaptations related to the COVID pandemic and clinic and participant characteristics. Virtual asynchronous intervention delivery had mixed effects on adoption and implementation that varied across clinics and participants. Participants expressed interest in maintaining the MI4MI intervention moving forward; however, identification of sustainability infrastructure was limited. MI4MI was evaluated to be relatively pragmatic. Contextual factors strongly shaped implementation of MI4MI. Future iterations of MI4MI should include training delivery modes and incentives that accommodate a range of participants across job roles and organizational settings. Future studies including control clinics are needed to measure effectiveness for increasing vaccination and comparing virtual versus hybrid implementation strategies.

We studied a training program called Brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI). This program tried to teach doctors and other healthcare workers how to talk with pregnant people about vaccines. We looked at how this training program worked in different clinics. We talked with and gave surveys to the healthcare workers and patients at clinics who participated in this program. Healthcare workers who completed the MI4MI program had better experiences talking about vaccines after the training. This study happened during the early COVID pandemic, so training was done online. Healthcare workers and clinics had mixed responses to the online training approach. COVID made it hard for some people to participate. Many people who did the training said they would like to keep using the MI4MI training and skills in the future. More studies are needed to learn if the MI4MI training increases vaccination rates and to look at ways to improve online training.

Child Health Needs and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Workforce: 2020-2040.

Pediatric infectious diseases (PID) physicians prevent and treat childhood infections through clinical care, research, public health, education, antimicrobial stewardship, and infection prevention. This article is part of an American Board of Pediatrics Foundation-sponsored supplement investigating the future of the pediatric subspecialty workforce. The article offers context to findings from a modeling analysis estimating the supply of PID subspecialists in the United States between 2020 and 2040. It provides an overview of children cared for by PID subspecialists, reviews the current state of the PID workforce, and discusses the projected headcount and clinical workforce equivalents of PID subspecialists at the national, census region, and census division levels over this 2-decade period. The article concludes by discussing the education and training, clinical practice, policy, and research implications of the data presented. Adjusting for population growth, the PID workforce is projected to grow more slowly than most other pediatric subspecialties and geographic disparities in access to PID care are expected to worsen. In models considering alternative scenarios, decreases in the number of fellows and time spent in clinical care significantly affect the PID workforce. Notably, model assumptions may not adequately account for potential threats to the PID workforce, including a declining number of fellows entering training and the unknown impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and future emerging infections on workforce attrition. Changes to education and training, clinical care, and policy are needed to ensure the PID workforce can meet the future needs of US children.

Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Experiences, Practices, and Attitudes in Rural Primary Care Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates remain low in rural areas. A strong clinician recommendation improves vaccine uptake, but the pediatric COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices of rural primary care clinicians have not been reported. Our objectives were to describe, among rural Colorado pediatric clinicians: 1) recommendation practices for COVID-19 vaccine compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines, and 2) personal attitudes. METHODS: From July to October 2023, surveys were distributed to clinicians in rural Colorado identified as pediatric vaccine providers in counties designated as rural through the Colorado Immunization Information System using mail and email. RESULTS: Of 89 survey respondents, 37% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 months-5 years old, compared to 79% for influenza (P = 0.05) and 92% for school-entry required vaccines (P = 0.04). For children 6-11 and 12-17 years old, 43% and 44% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines, respectively, compared to 71% and 70% for influenza (P < 0.01), and 91% for school-entry required vaccines (P < 0.01). Forty four percent of clinicians agreed that COVID-19 vaccines are important for pediatric patients. The most common clinician-perceived challenges to discussing pediatric COVID-19 vaccines included a lack of parent interest in more information (76% "somewhat" or "strongly" agree), lack of ability to change parents' minds (71%), and concerns that the vaccines are too political (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Most rural Colorado clinicians do not strongly recommend pediatric COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines. Efforts to improve pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake should aim to strengthen clinicians' recommendations of these vaccines.