Structural and relational factors for successful cross-sector collaboration in home visiting: a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Aligning delivery and financing systems across sectors to create broader systems of care can improve the health and well-being of families experiencing adversities. We aimed to identify structural and relational factors for best practices to achieve successful cross-sector collaboration among home visiting programs in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a multiple case study approach to identify best practices for successful cross-sector collaboration between home visitors and other community service providers. We selected five diverse exemplary cases with cross-sector collaboration with variation in implementing agency type and geographic location. Cases were selected using a positive deviance approach based on strong coordination and integration with different community service provider types identified from previous survey data. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with home visiting staff, community providers, and clients with a total of 76 interviews conducted from 2021 to 2022. We wrote memos to synthesize themes within each case through data triangulation using interview data, documents, and site visit observations. We compared themes across the five cases to create a cross-case synthesis of best practices for successful cross-sector collaboration. RESULTS: Across the five cases, relational factors including leadership from all levels, champions across sectors, and shared goals between community providers were key factors for successful collaboration. Interpersonal relationships, coupled with the desire and capacity to engage, facilitated effective coordination to address families' needs. At the structural level, shared data systems, written agreements, and co-location enabled care coordination activities. Community Advisory Boards provided a venue for developing partnerships, relationship-building, resource-sharing, and increasing awareness of home visiting. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key elements of successful cross-sector collaboration across five case studies where home visitors coordinate care frequently and/or are structurally integrated with a range of providers. These learnings will inform future interventions to improve home visiting collaboration with other community providers to create a system of care to enhance family well-being.

Coordination of family's care in an evidence-based nurse home visiting program.

Interprofessional care coordination within evidence-based prevention programs like Nurse-Family Partnership® (NFP) is necessary to meet family needs and maximize program impact. This study aimed to describe the coordination of families' care in the NFP home visiting context. We used an adapted grounded theory approach and purposively sampled seven NFP sites. We conducted telephone interviews with 95 participants: 51 NFP staff (54%), 39 healthcare providers (41%), and 5 social service providers (5%). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, validated, and analyzed in NVivo11. Many community providers in all sites described their knowledge of the characteristics of the NFP intervention, including the strength of its evidence to achieve outcomes. Care coordination was dynamic and changed over time based on client needs and staff willingness to work together. Effective care coordination in the NFP context from the provider perspective is driven by shared knowledge, integrated systems, mission alignment, and individual champions who value the program.

Socioemotional Development of Infants and Toddlers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's socioemotional development is critical to plan for ongoing needs in the early intervention and education systems. Objective: To determine if Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3) and Ages and Stages Questionnaire Social-Emotional, Second Edition (ASQ:SE-2) scores changed during the COVID-19 pandemic among families served by a nurse-visiting program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, cohort study took place from 2015 through 2021 and included 4 cohorts (prepandemic, pandemic 1, pandemic 2, and pandemic 3) with differing pandemic exposure at the time of screening. Analysis was conducted from July 2022 through October 2023. Data from the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), a national nurse-visiting program enrolling birthing people during pregnancy and continuing through age 2 years, were used. A total of 60 171 families with a singleton birth at 37 weeks' gestation or longer and at least 1 valid ASQ-3 and/or ASQ:SE-2 screening in the NFP from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2021, were enrolled. Exposure: COVID-19 pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were a positive screening, defined as scores in the refer area on the ASQ-3 at 10 months and 18 months of age and in the ASQ:SE-2 at 12 months and 18 months of age. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for positive screening in pandemic cohorts compared with the prepandemic cohort. Covariates included parent age, race and ethnicity, marital status, income, child's biological sex, and multiparity. Results: Of 60 171 families enrolled, pandemic cohorts had fewer teenagers, were more likely to be married, and were multiparous. Compared with the prepandemic cohort, all pandemic cohorts had higher odds of positive screening on the ASQ-SE at 12 months (pandemic 1: OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66; pandemic 2: OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.30-1.96; and pandemic 3: OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.61-2.33) and pandemic 2 and 3 had higher odds of a positive screening at 18 months (pandemic 2: OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.29-2.00 and pandemic 3: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.50-2.32). On the ASQ-3, pandemic cohorts 2 and 3 were more likely than the prepandemic cohort to screen positive on the communication subscale at 18 months (pandemic 2: OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.64 and pandemic 3: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.53). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during the first year of life, was associated with higher odds of positive ASQ:SE-2 screening, even when adjusting for demographics and family risks. These findings suggest that unmeasured community, family, and child factors that changed as a result of the pandemic contributed to delays in young children's socio-emotional development.

Corporal Punishment in Schools.

The use of corporal punishment in schools is not an effective or ethical method for management of behavior concerns and causes harm to students. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that corporal punishment in all school settings be abolished in all states by law and replaced by alternative forms of student behavior management. Corporal punishment remains legal in many public and private schools in the United States and is disproportionately used among Black students and children with disabilities. The aims of this policy statement are to review the incidence of school-based corporal punishment; the negative physical, psychological, and developmental impact of corporal punishment on students; and the need for continued advocacy by pediatricians, educators, and parents to abolish corporal punishment in all schools.

Engage, Develop, Learn: a pilot randomized clinical trial to test if a mobile application can enhance home support for early cognitive development among children living in poverty.

Background: Mobile applications (apps) exist to promote early child development; however, few studies have examined use of these apps among low-income families. Our objectives were to measure engagement with the Engage, Develop, Learn (EDL) app and determine if it promoted engagement and behavior change among low-income caregivers. Methods: We conducted a pilot study among English and Spanish-speaking, low-income families with children ages 12 to 15 months who received either the EDL app or injury prevention text messages. Baseline data were collected and interventions delivered over two home visits. App engagement was measured using messages opened. Caregiver development-promoting behaviors were measured with STIMQ score changes from baseline to follow-up at child age 2 years. We conducted key informant interviews among families randomized to receive the EDL app to identify barriers and facilitators to app use. Results: A total of 100 caregivers were recruited at their children's preventive care visit with 50 randomized to receive the EDL app and 50 to receive the injury prevention text messages; however, only 25 in the development app and 34 in the injury prevention group completed both home visits. Follow-up data were collected from 14 in the development app group and 30 in the injury prevention group. Over 10 weeks, 24% (6/25) remained engaged with the development app. STIMQ scores did not differ between groups. Barriers included technical difficulties accessing the app, social stressors, and 'forgetting' to use it. Conclusions: Our pilot randomized trial of a child development app suggests that it may not be effective for promoting behavior change among low-income caregivers due to low engagement. Trial Registration: This pilot trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02717390).

A qualitative study of effective collaboration among nurse home visitors, healthcare providers and community support services in the United States.

Collaboration across sectors is needed to improve community health, but little is known about collaborative activities among public health prevention programs. Using the Nurse-Family Partnership® (NFP) home visiting program as context, this qualitative study aimed to describe effective collaboration among nurse home visitors, healthcare providers and community support services to serve families experiencing social and economic adversities. We used grounded theory to characterise collaboration with six purposively sampled NFP sites in the United States through in-depth interviews. We interviewed 73 participants between 2017 and 2019: 50 NFP staff, 18 healthcare providers and 5 other service providers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, validated and analysed in NVivo 11. Validation steps included inter-coder consistency checks and expert review. Thematic memos were synthesised across sites. Most participants perceived collaboration to be important when serving families with complex needs, but substantial variation existed in the degree to which NFP nurses collaborate with providers dependent on provider type and community context. Factors that contributed to effective collaboration were relational in nature, including leadership commitment and provider champions, shared perceptions of trust, respect and value, and referral partnerships and outreach; organisational in terms of mission congruence between providers; and structural such as policy and system integration that facilitated data sharing and communication channels. These findings provide greater insights into effective cross-sector collaboration and care coordination for families experiencing adversities. Collaboration across sectors to promote health among families experiencing adversities requires intentional efforts by all inter-professional providers and continued commitment among all levels of leadership to coordinate services.

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.

Transmission of Intergenerational Parenting Attitudes and Natural Mentorship: Associations Within the LONGSCAN population.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that families transmit child maltreatment and parenting attitudes. Natural mentorship may mediate intergenerational parenting attitudes' risk for maltreatment but has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare parenting attitudes between adolescents exposed to or at risk for maltreatment and their caregivers and to determine if natural mentorship mediates differences in parenting attitudes' maltreatment risk. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The study included 779 children and their caregivers from the Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) study, METHODS: Standardized measures assessed parenting attitudes, natural mentorship and demographic characteristics. Repeated measures, multivariable logistic regressions were used to predict low risk parenting attitudes for maltreatment among adolescents with and without natural mentors. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis, natural mentorship did not predict an adolescent having low risk parenting attitudes when their caregivers had moderate or high risk attitudes: appropriate empathy adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 -3.01; appropriate expectations aOR = 1.35; CI 0.62-2.93; physical punishment rejection aOR = 1.74; CI 0.78-3.88; and appropriate roles aOR = 1.11; CI 0.57-2.18. Low risk caregiver parenting attitudes for appropriate empathy related to adolescents having low risk empathy attitudes (aOR = 2.89; CI 1.31-6.37). Male gender, African American race and Hispanic ethnicity were negatively associated with an adolescent having low risk parenting attitudes for maltreatment. CONCLUSIONS: Natural mentorship did not mediate adolescent parenting attitudes. While prevention and intervention strategies should include natural mentoring given positive health impacts, services must be cognizant of and designed for gender, racial and ethnic diversity.

Physicians' Use of Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Adult Vaccination Uptake.

INTRODUCTION: This study assesses the following among primary care physicians: (1) the use of evidence-based strategies to improve adult vaccination rates, (2) the number of strategies employed simultaneously, and (3) characteristics associated with assessing adult vaccinations at each visit. METHODS: An internet and mail survey was administered between December 2015 and January 2016 on primary care physicians designed to be representative of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians memberships. Data analysis was conducted in 2019. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (617 of 935); 94% reported using electronic health records. Standing orders (84%) and electronic provider reminders at a visit (61%) were the most common strategies reported for influenza vaccine. Electronic provider reminders at a visit (53%) and recording a vaccination in an immunization registry (32%) were the most common strategies reported for all noninfluenza vaccines. Most physicians reported using 2 or more strategies, although this was more common for influenza (74%) than for noninfluenza (62%) vaccines. In multivariable analysis, physicians who reported assessing adult vaccinations at every patient visit were more likely to work in practices where decisions about purchasing and handling vaccines were made at a larger system level (RR=1.20, 95% CI=1.04,1.40), and they reported using electronic provider reminders (RR=1.38, 95% CI=1.15, 1.69) and standing orders (RR=1.45, 95% CI=1.21, 1.75) for all noninfluenza adult vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Several strategies are being used to increase adult vaccination, particularly for the influenza vaccine. Investment in implementing standing orders and electronic clinical decision support for all routine adult vaccinations could help facilitate assessment of adult vaccinations at each visit and potentially improve adult vaccination rates.

Use of Standing Orders for Vaccination Among Pediatricians.

OBJECTIVES: Standing orders are an effective way to increase vaccination rates, yet little is known about how pediatricians use this strategy for childhood immunizations. We assessed current use of, barriers to using, and factors associated with use of standing orders for vaccination among pediatricians. METHODS: Internet and mail survey from June 2017 to September 2017 among a nationally representative sample of pediatricians. In the principal component analysis of barrier items, we identified 2 factors: physician responsibility and concerns about office processes. A multivariable analysis that included barrier scales and physician and/or practice characteristics was used to identify factors associated with use of standing orders. RESULTS: The response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 59% of respondents reported using standing orders. The most commonly identified barriers among nonusers were concern that patients may mistakenly receive the wrong vaccine (68%), concern that patients prefer to speak with the physician about a vaccine before receiving it (62%), and belief that it is important for the physician to be the person who recommends a vaccine to patients (57%). These 3 items also made up the physician responsibility barrier factor. Respondents with higher physician responsibility scores were less likely to use standing orders (risk ratio: 0.59 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.66] per point increase). System-level decision-making about vaccines, suburban or rural location, and lower concerns about office processes scores were each associated with use of standing orders in the bivariate, but not the multivariable, analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatricians, use of standing orders for vaccination is far from universal. Interventions to increase use of standing orders should address physicians' attitudinal barriers as well as organizational factors.

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.

Ten years of experience with herpes zoster vaccine in primary care- how attitudes and practices have changed and what it may mean for a new zoster vaccine.

Zoster vaccine live (ZVL [Zostavax]) has been recommended for the prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) among immunocompetent adults ≥60 years in the United States since 2008. To examine changes in healthcare providers' perceptions and practices related to HZ disease and vaccination, we administered surveys to national networks of primary care physicians in 2005, 2008, and 2016. Ten years after ZVL was first licensed, physicians were more likely to respond that they perceived HZ as a serious disease and more strongly recommended ZVL, and were less likely to report less likely to report several major barriers to HZ vaccination such as patient cost, vaccine effectiveness and competing medical concerns. Overall, physician attitudes appear to be more favorable towards zoster vaccination after a decade of availability of a HZ vaccine. The new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV [Shingrix]) may benefit from physician's increased perception of the importance of HZ and HZ vaccination.

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.

Students Seeking Mental Health Services at School-Based Health Centers: Characteristics and Utilization Patterns.

BACKGROUND: School-based health centers (SBHC) can address unmet mental health needs. Little is known about how students seek care from different providers at SBHCs. We describe and compare how students' SBHC visits differ for students seen by mental health providers (MH group) relative to students seen only by primary care providers (PC group). METHODS: Using administrative data with ICD-9 codes from 9 SBHCs in Denver, Colorado serving youth 10-19 years old during the 2014-2015 school year, we analyzed predictors of SBHC clinic visits via negative binomial regression and ICD-9 codes for first visit to MH providers. RESULTS: Mental health users (N = 516) had an average of 14.2 ± 12.9 SBHC visits and PC users (N = 4026) had an average of 2.6 ± 2.4 SBHC visits annually. Students in the MH group, those with public insurance, and females had a higher incidence rate ratio for SBHC clinic visits than PC group students, those with private insurance, and males respectively. Depression was the most common primary diagnosis for the first MH visit. CONCLUSIONS: Students accessing MH services at SBHC return for follow up visits at higher rates than students only seeing PC providers. SBHCs represent a valuable opportunity to enhance integrated mental health services.

The Link Between School Attendance and Good Health.

More than 6.5 million children in the United States, approximately 13% of all students, miss 15 or more days of school each year. The rates of chronic absenteeism vary between states, communities, and schools, with significant disparities based on income, race, and ethnicity. Chronic school absenteeism, starting as early as preschool and kindergarten, puts students at risk for poor school performance and school dropout, which in turn, put them at risk for unhealthy behaviors as adolescents and young adults as well as poor long-term health outcomes. Pediatricians and their colleagues caring for children in the medical setting have opportunities at the individual patient and/or family, practice, and population levels to promote school attendance and reduce chronic absenteeism and resulting health disparities. Although this policy statement is primarily focused on absenteeism related to students' physical and mental health, pediatricians may play a role in addressing absenteeism attributable to a wide range of factors through individual interactions with patients and their parents and through community-, state-, and federal-level advocacy.

Vaccination Practices Among Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Non-pregnant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Many non-pregnant women see obstetrician-gynecologists as their sole source of medical care, yet little is known about vaccination practices of obstetrician-gynecologists for non-pregnant patients. The objectives were to assess, among a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists, practices related to vaccine delivery in non-pregnant patients and factors associated with stocking and administering more than three different vaccines to non-pregnant patients. METHODS: E-mail and mail surveys were administered July-October 2015, with analyses performed during October-November 2015 and April-June 2018. RESULTS: The response rate was 73% (353/482). Human papillomavirus (92%); influenza (82%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines (50%) were the vaccines most commonly assessed, with the remaining vaccines assessed by <40% of respondents. Vaccines most commonly administered by obstetrician-gynecologists to non-pregnant patients included human papillomavirus (81%); influenza (70%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (54%). The remaining vaccines were administered by <30% of obstetrician-gynecologists. Factors associated with routinely administering more than three vaccines to non-pregnant patients included working in a hospital-, public health-, or university-associated clinic (RR=1.87, 95% CI=1.35, 2.58, referent to private practice); a larger practice (more than five providers; RR=1.54, 95% CI=1.05, 2.27); perceiving fewer financial barriers (RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.57, 0.96); fewer practice-associated barriers (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.55, 0.92); and greater patient barriers (RR=1.62, 95% CI=1.33, 1.98). CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus; influenza; and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines are the only vaccines routinely assessed and administered to non-pregnant patients by most obstetrician-gynecologists. Given their role as the sole source of care for many women, obstetrician-gynecologists could make a positive impact on the vaccination status of their non-pregnant patients.

Primary care physicians' perspectives on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in adults and a potential RSV vaccine for adults.

BACKGROUND: Deaths attributable to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among adults are estimated to exceed 11,000 annually, and annual adult hospitalizations for influenza and RSV may be comparable. RSV vaccines for older adults are in development. We assessed the following among primary care physicians (PCPs) who treat adults: (1) perception of RSV disease burden; (2) current RSV testing practices; and (3) anticipated barriers to adoption of an RSV vaccine. METHODS: We administered an Internet and mail survey from February to March 2017 to national networks of 930 PCPs. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (620/930). Forty-nine percent of respondents (n = 303) were excluded from analysis as they reported never or rarely caring for an adult patient with possible RSV in the past year. Among respondents who reported taking care of RSV patients (n = 317), 73% and 57% responded that in patients ≥ 50 years, influenza is generally more severe than RSV and that they rarely consider RSV as a potential pathogen, respectively. Most (61%) agreed that they do not test for RSV because there is no treatment. The most commonly reported anticipated barriers to a RSV vaccine were potential out-of-pocket expenses for patients if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (93%) and lack of reimbursement for vaccination (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians reported little experience with RSV disease in adults. They are generally not testing for it and the majority believe that influenza disease is more severe. Physicians will require more information about RSV disease burden in adults and the potential need for a vaccine in their adult patients.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Strategies to Address Vaccine Refusal Among Pregnant Women.

OBJECTIVE: To describe 1) obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') perceptions of the frequency of vaccine refusal among pregnant patients and perceived reasons for refusal and 2) ob-gyns' strategies used when encountering vaccine refusal and perceived effectiveness of those strategies. METHODS: We conducted an email and mail survey among a nationally representative network of ob-gyns from March 2016 to June 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 69% (331/477). Health care providers perceived that pregnant women more commonly refused influenza vaccine than tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine: 62% of respondents reported 10% or greater of pregnant women they care for in a typical month refused influenza vaccine compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine. The most commonly reported reasons for vaccine refusal were patients' belief that influenza vaccine makes them sick (48%), belief they are unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease (38%), general worries about vaccines (32%), desire to maintain a natural pregnancy (31%), and concern that their child could develop autism as a result of maternal vaccination (25%). The most commonly reported strategies ob-gyns used to address refusal were stating that it is safe to receive vaccines in pregnancy (96%), explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk (90%), or that not getting the vaccine puts the pregnant woman's health at risk (84%). The strategy perceived as most effective was stating that not getting vaccinated puts the fetus or newborn at risk. CONCLUSION: Ob-gyns perceive vaccine refusal among pregnant women as common and refusal of influenza vaccine as more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine. Emphasizing the risk of disease to the fetus or newborn may be an effective strategy to increase vaccine uptake.

Primary care physicians' experience with zoster vaccine live (ZVL) and awareness and attitudes regarding the new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV).

BACKGROUND: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has routinely recommended zoster vaccine live (ZVL) for adults  ≥60 since 2008; only 33% of eligible adults received it by 2016. A recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was licensed in 2017 and ACIP recommended in January 2018. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians (1) practices and attitudes regarding ZVL and (2) awareness of RZV. METHODS: We administered an Internet and mail survey from July to September 2016 to national networks of 953 primary care physicians. RESULTS: Response rate was 65% (603/923). Ninety-three % of physicians recommended ZVL to adults ≥60, but fewer recommended it to adults ≥60 with a prior history of zoster (88%), adults > 85 (62%) and adults ≥60 on low-dose methotrexate (42%). Several physicians recommended ZVL in ways that are not recommended by ACIP including to adults 50-59 (50%), adults ≥60 with HIV (33%), and adults ≥60 on high dose prednisone (≥20 mg/day) (27%). Nineteen percent of physicians stocked and administered ZVL and did not refer patients elsewhere for vaccination, 37% did not stock and only referred patients to receive it, and 44% both stocked/administered and referred elsewhere. Twenty-three % (n = 115) of physicians who had ever administered ZVL in the office (n = 490) had stopped, citing primarily financial issues (90%). Only 5% were 'very aware' of RZV. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians report not recommending ZVL to certain ACIP-recommended groups, but report recommending it to some groups for which the vaccine should be avoided. Implementation of recommendations for RZV will need to consider financial barriers and the complex patchwork of office-based and pharmacy delivery ZVL has encountered.

Adoption of Serogroup B Meningococcal Vaccine Recommendations.

: media-1vid110.1542/5799875076001PEDS-VA_2018-0344Video Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that 16- to 23-year-olds may be vaccinated with the serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine on the basis of individual clinical decision-making (Category B). We assessed the following among US pediatricians and family physicians (FPs): (1) practices regarding MenB vaccine delivery, (2) factors influencing a decision to recommend the MenB vaccine, and (3) factors associated with discussing the MenB vaccine. METHODS: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and FPs via e-mail and Internet from October 2016 to December 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). During routine visits, 51% of pediatricians and 31% of FPs reported always or often discussing MenB vaccine. Among those who discussed often or always, 91% recommended vaccination; among those who never or rarely discussed, 11% recommended. We found that 73% of pediatricians and 41% of FPs currently administered the MenB vaccine. Although many providers reported not knowing about factors influencing recommendation decisions, MenB disease outbreaks (89%), disease incidence (62%), and effectiveness (52%), safety (48%), and duration of protection of MenB vaccine (39%) increased the likelihood of recommendation, whereas the Category B recommendation (45%) decreased likelihood. Those somewhat or not at all aware of the MenB vaccine (risk ratio 0.32 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.41]) and those practicing in a health maintenance organization (0.39 [0.18-0.87]) were less likely, whereas those aware of disease outbreaks in their state (1.25 [1.08-1.45]) were more likely to discuss MenB vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians have significant gaps in knowledge about MenB disease and the MenB vaccine, and this appears to be a major driver of the decision not to discuss the vaccines.