Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? METHODS: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. RESULTS: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. CONCLUSIONS: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.

PURPOSE: We assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45-49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake. METHODS: In February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45-49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention. RESULTS: We mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6-17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45-49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9-22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months. CONCLUSION: CRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45-49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Ready, set, go! The role of organizational readiness to predict adoption of a family caregiver training program using the Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers FIRST is an evidence-based program addressing gaps in caregivers' skills. In 2020, the Veterans Health Administration Caregiver Support Program (CSP) nationally endorsed Caregivers FIRST, offering credit in leadership performance plans to encourage all VA medical centers (VAMCs) to implement locally. This study examines the association of organizational readiness with VAMC adoption of Caregivers FIRST. METHODS: In a cohort observational study, we surveyed CSP managers about their facilities' readiness to implement using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) instrument and compared change commitment and change efficacy domains among VAMCs "adopters" defined as delivering Caregivers FIRST within 1 year of the national announcement to those that did not ("non-adopters"). Within "adopters," we categorized time to adoption based on Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory including "innovators," "early adopters," "early majority," "late adopters," and "laggards." Organizational readiness and site characteristics (facility complexity, staffing levels, volume of applications for caregiver assistance services) were compared between "adopters," "non-adopters," and between time to adoption subcategories. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess whether ORIC and site characteristics were associated with early adoption among "adopters." RESULTS: Fifty-one of 63 (81%) VAMCs with CSP manager survey respondents adopted Caregivers FIRST during the first year. ORIC change commitment and efficacy were similar for "adopters" and "non-adopters." However, sites that adopted earlier (innovators and early adopters) had higher ORIC change commitment and efficacy scores than the rest of the "adopters." Logistic regression results indicated that higher ORIC change commitment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-5.95) and ORIC change efficacy (OR = 2.60; 95% CI, 1.12-6.03) scores were associated with increased odds that a VAMC was an early adopter (categorized as an "innovator," "early adopter", or "early majority"). Site-level characteristics were not associated with Caregivers FIRST early adoption. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to prospectively assess organizational readiness and the timing of subsequent program adoption. Early adoption was associated with higher ORIC change commitment and change efficacy and not site-level characteristics. These findings yield insights into the role of organizational readiness to accelerate program adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03474380. Registered on March 22, 2018.

Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, screening rates in vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs) remain below national targets. CHCs in North Carolina are challenged to reach CRC screening targets as they tend to be under-resourced, have limited capacity to implement and sustain population health interventions, and typically operate independently from one another and from regional colonoscopy providers. The Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE) project is designed to address barriers to CRC screening in partnership with CHCs by implementing a multilevel intervention that includes centralized support infrastructure for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to follow-up colonoscopy. This paper describes protocols for the SCORE implementation trial. METHODS: We will conduct a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial that will assess effectiveness at increasing CRC screening and follow-up rates while also assessing implementation outcomes. The planned trial sample will include 4000 CHC patients who are at average CRC risk and due for screening. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either usual care or a multilevel intervention that includes mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation support to follow-up colonoscopy for those with abnormal FIT. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of any CRC screening test at six months after randomization. We will also conduct a multilevel assessment of implementation outcomes and determinants. DISCUSSION: This hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention that provides centralized infrastructure for mailed FIT screening and patient navigation for CHCs that operate independently of other healthcare facilities. Findings from this research will enhance understanding of the effectiveness of a centralized approach and factors that determine successful implementation in vulnerable patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on May 28, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results: This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Physicians' rhetorical strategies for motivating HPV vaccination.

RATIONALE: Receiving a healthcare provider's recommendation is a well-documented predictor of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, and yet recommendations remain understudied and undertheorized. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively describe strategies providers use to motivate HPV vaccination. METHOD: We surveyed a national sample of 771 U.S. primary care physicians. Data came from an open-ended item that assessed physicians' perspectives on the most effective thing they could say to persuade parents to get HPV vaccine for their 11- to 12-year-old children. Using a standardized codebook and two independent coders, we conducted a thematic analysis to identify rhetorical strategies underlying physicians' responses. RESULTS: We identified two sets of strategies for motivating HPV vaccination. One set drew parents' attention to specific actors or vaccine characteristics. Physicians using these strategies asked parents to consider their children's individual risk in the short-term, named specific diseases that could be prevented, emphasized the novelty of HPV vaccine as a cancer prevention tool, and gave their personal endorsement for HPV vaccination. In contrast, the second set of strategies was more distancing and impersonal. Physicians using these strategies referenced future risk, described cancer prevention in general terms, framed HPV vaccine as similar to other vaccines, and shared organizational endorsements for HPV vaccination. Across these two sets of strategies, a tension emerged between the goals of engaging parents' perceptions of HPV as a threat to their children versus framing HPV vaccination as a normative standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that theoretical frameworks, such as Construal Level Theory, may be helpful for positioning provider recommendations in the broader literature on persuasive communication. By identifying competing approaches to motivating HPV vaccination, this study lays the groundwork for future research to test the acceptability and impact of strategies for recommending routine preventive care.

Exploring Prostate Cancer Patients' Interest and Preferences for Receiving Genetic Risk Information About Cancer Aggressiveness.

The number of cases of aggressive prostate cancer is increasing. Differentiating between aggressive and indolent cases has resulted in increased difficulty for the physician and patient to decide on the best treatment option. Due to this challenge, efforts are underway to profile genetic risk for prostate cancer aggressiveness, which may help physicians and patients at risk for developing aggressive prostate cancer to select an appropriate treatment option. This study explores patients' interest in receiving genetic results, preference for how genetic risk information should be communicated, and willingness to share results with adult male first-degree relatives (FDRs). A nine-item survey was adapted to assess their beliefs and attitudes about genetic testing for prostate cancer aggressiveness. In addition, participants (n = 50) responded to hypothetical scenarios and questions associated with perceived importance of risk disclosure, preferences for receiving genetic risk information, and sharing of results with FDRs. As the hypothetical risk estimate for aggressive prostate cancer increased, patients' willingness to receive genetic risk information increased. This study found that most patients preferred receiving genetic risk education in the form of a DVD (76%), one-page informational sheet (75%), or educational booklet (70%). Almost all patients (98%) reported that they would be willing to share their test results with FDRs. The results of this study highlight prostate cancer patients' desire to receive and share genetic risk information. Future research should focus on assessing the long-term benefits of receiving genetic information for prostate cancer patients and implications of sharing this information with FDRs.

A content analysis of HPV vaccination messages available online.

Parents have varied HPV vaccine communication needs, which presents a challenge for healthcare providers. To improve communication resources for providers, we sought to characterize HPV vaccination messages available in existing educational materials. In fall 2016, we searched PubMed, educational material clearinghouses, and Google for English language HPV vaccination messages. We extracted messages that a provider might use when raising the topic of HPV vaccination, answering common questions, and motivating vaccination. Two reviewers independently coded each message. The search identified 267 unique messages about HPV vaccination. Messages generally were long (mean no. of words = 44, standard deviation [SD] = 33) and required a high level of education to read (mean reading grade level = 10, SD = 3). Only 32% of messages were shorter than 25 words, and 12% had a readability at or below grade 6. Most frequent were messages to address common parent questions or concerns (62%); the most common topics were diseases prevented by HPV vaccine (18%) and safety and side effects (16%). Many messages included information about cancer prevention (26%) and same-day vaccination (13%). Few messages (6%) used a presumptive style to recommend HPV vaccination. In conclusion, available messages about HPV vaccination were markedly varied. We identified few messages that were both brief (to facilitate providers memorizing them) and accessible (to facilitate parents understanding them). Future research should identify which messages lead to HPV vaccine uptake.

Florida physicians' reported use of AFIX-based strategies for human papillomavirus vaccination.

HPV vaccination rates in Florida are low. To increase rates, the CDC recommends clinics adhere to components of their evidence-based quality improvement program, AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange of information). We explored factors associated with engaging in HPV-specific AFIX-related activities. In 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 770 pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida and assessed vaccination practices, clinic characteristics, and HPV-related knowledge. Data were analyzed in 2017. The primary outcome was whether physicians' clinics engaged in ≥1 AFIX activity. We stratified by physician specialty and developed multivariable models using a backward selection approach. Of the participants in the analytic sample (n = 340), 52% were male, 60% were White of any ethnicity, and 55% were non-Hispanic. Pediatricians and family medicine physicians differed on: years practicing medicine (p < 0.001), HPV-related knowledge (p < 0.001), and VFC provider status (p < 0.001), among others. Only 39% of physicians reported engaging in ≥1 AFIX activity. In the stratified multivariable model for pediatricians, AFIX activity was significantly associated with HPV-related knowledge (aOR = 1.33;95%CI = 1.08-1.63) and provider use of vaccine reminder prompts (aOR = 3.61;95%CI = 1.02-12.77). For family medicine physicians, HPV-related knowledge was significant (aOR = 1.57;95%CI = 1.20-2.05) as was majority race of patient population (non-Hispanic White vs. Other: aOR = 3.02;95%CI = 1.08-8.43), daily patient load (<20 vs. 20-24: aOR = 9.05;95%CI = 2.72-30.10), and vaccine administration to male patients (aOR = 2.98;95%CI = 1.11-8.02). Fewer than half of Florida pediatric and family medicine physicians engaged in any AFIX activities. Future interventions to increase AFIX engagement should focus on implementing and evaluating AFIX activities in groups identified as having low engagement in AFIX activities.

Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that shared decision making (SDM) involving a thorough discussion of benefits and harms should occur between clinicians and patients before initiating lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require an SDM visit using a decision aid as a prerequisite for LCS coverage. However, little is known about how SDM about LCS occurs in practice. Objective: To assess the quality of SDM about the initiation of LCS in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative content analysis was performed of transcribed conversations between primary care or pulmonary care physicians and 14 patients presumed to be eligible for LCS, recorded between April 1, 2014, and March 1, 2018, that were identified within a large database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Independent observer ratings of communication behaviors of physicians using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making) scale, a validated 12-item measure of SDM (total score, 0-100 points, where 0 indicates no evidence of SDM and 100 indicates evidence of SDM at the highest skill level); time spent discussing LCS during visits; and evidence of decision aid use. Results: A total of 14 conversations about initiating LCS were identified; 9 patients were women, and 5 patients were men; the mean (SD) patient age was 63.9 (5.1) years; 7 patients had Medicare, and 8 patients were current smokers. Half the conversations were conducted by primary care physicians. The mean total OPTION score for the 14 LCS conversations was 6 on a scale of 0 to 100 (range, 0-17). None of the conversations met the minimum skill criteria for 8 of the 12 SDM behaviors. Physicians universally recommended LCS. Discussion of harms (such as false positives and their sequelae or overdiagnosis) was virtually absent. The mean total visit length of a discussion was 13:07 minutes (range, 3:48-27:09 minutes). The mean time spent discussing LCS was 0:59 minute (range, 0:16-2:19 minutes), or 8% of the total visit time (range, 1%-18%). There was no evidence that decision aids or other patient education materials for LCS were used. Conclusions and Relevance: In this small sample of recorded encounters about initiating LCS, the observed quality of SDM was poor and explanation of potential harms of screening was virtually nonexistent. Time spent discussing LCS was minimal, and there was no evidence that decision aids were used. Although these findings are preliminary, they raise concerns that SDM for LCS in practice may be far from what is intended by guidelines.

Why is announcement training more effective than conversation training for introducing HPV vaccination? A theory-based investigation.

BACKGROUND: Improving healthcare providers' communication about HPV vaccination is critical to increasing uptake. We previously demonstrated that training providers to use presumptive announcements to introduce HPV vaccination improved uptake, whereas training them to use participatory conversations had no effect. To understand how communication training changed provider perceptions and communication practices, we evaluated intermediate outcomes and process measures from our randomized clinical trial, with a particular focus on identifying mechanisms that might explain the announcement training's impact. METHODS: In 2015, a physician educator delivered 1-h in-clinic HPV vaccination recommendation trainings at 20 primary care clinics in North Carolina serving 11,578 patients age 11 or 12. Clinics were randomized to receive training to use "announcements" that presume parents are ready to vaccinate or "conversations" that invite dialog about vaccination. Training participants were 83 HPV vaccine providers. Pre- and post-training surveys assessed constructs from the theory of planned behavior (TPB), including providers' attitudes and subjective norms about HPV vaccination and their perceived behavioral control to recommend HPV vaccination. Surveys also assessed providers' perceptions of the announcement and conversation communication strategies. RESULTS: Both trainings improved TPB-related constructs, including providers' positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control to recommend the vaccine (all p < .001, Cohen's d = .62-.90). Furthermore, in both trainings, the amount of time providers reported needing to discuss HPV vaccination with parents decreased from pre-training to 1-month follow-up (mean = 3.8 vs. 3.2 min, p = .01, d = .28). However, announcement trainings outperformed conversation trainings on other measures. For example, providers who received announcement training more often reported that the communication strategy saved them time, was easy to use, helped them promote HPV vaccination as routine care, and increased HPV vaccination coverage in their clinics (all p < .05; d = .44-.60). CONCLUSIONS: Both announcement and conversation trainings improved providers' HPV vaccine-related perceptions. However, providers viewed announcements as easier to use and more effective, which may help to explain the success of this training approach. Future provider communication interventions should consider implementation outcomes, including acceptability, alongside more traditional TPB constructs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02377843 . Registered on February 27, 2015.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Training Experience Among Family Medicine Residents and Faculty.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residency training is a pivotal time to establish skills for career-long practices, particularly for challenging skills such as human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine recommendation. Training experience and preferences related to delivering HPV vaccine recommendations were examined for family medicine (FM) residents and faculty. METHODS: Residents (n=28) and faculty (n=19) were identified through a national FM residency directory and recruited from training programs in Florida. Participants completed a phone interview assessing key aspects of HPV vaccine recommendation training. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis. A brief follow-up survey assessing training, practices, and demographics was emailed after the interview. RESULTS: Residents' training experience with HPV vaccine recommendation varied from none to extensive, and was often self-directed. Variation in training was seen between and within programs. Faculty often noted HPV vaccination training was not standardized and residents lacked instruction about effective communication. Most programs relied on preceptors for training residents but training from preceptors varied widely and was often not standardized within the program. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a lack of consistent and standardized training for delivering HPV vaccine recommendations. A training curriculum that uses multiple modalities and reflects resident and faculty preferences is needed.

Announcements Versus Conversations to Improve HPV Vaccination Coverage: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Improving provider recommendations is critical to addressing low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage. Thus, we sought to determine the effectiveness of training providers to improve their recommendations using either presumptive "announcements" or participatory "conversations." METHODS: In 2015, we conducted a parallel-group randomized clinical trial with 30 pediatric and family medicine clinics in central North Carolina. We randomized clinics to receive no training (control), announcement training, or conversation training. Announcements are brief statements that assume parents are ready to vaccinate, whereas conversations engage parents in open-ended discussions. A physician led the 1-hour, in-clinic training. The North Carolina Immunization Registry provided data on the primary trial outcome: 6-month coverage change in HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 dose) for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years. RESULTS: The immunization registry attributed 17 173 adolescents aged 11 or 12 to the 29 clinics still open at 6-months posttraining. Six-month increases in HPV vaccination coverage were larger for patients in clinics that received announcement training versus those in control clinics (5.4% difference, 95% confidence interval: 1.1%-9.7%). Stratified analyses showed increases for both girls (4.6% difference) and boys (6.2% difference). Patients in clinics receiving conversation training did not differ from those in control clinics with respect to changes in HPV vaccination coverage. Neither training was effective for changing coverage for other vaccination outcomes or for adolescents aged 13 through 17 (n = 37 796). CONCLUSIONS: Training providers to use announcements resulted in a clinically meaningful increase in HPV vaccine initiation among young adolescents.

Messages to Motivate Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: National Studies of Parents and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Physician communication about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is a key determinant of uptake. To support physician communication, we sought to identify messages that would motivate HPV vaccination. METHODS: From 2014 to 2015, we surveyed national samples of parents of adolescents ages 11 to 17 (n = 1,504) and primary care physicians (n = 776). Parents read motivational messages, selected from nine longer messages developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and six brief messages developed by the study team. Parents indicated whether each message would persuade them to get HPV vaccine for their adolescents. Physicians read the brief messages and indicated whether they would use them to persuade parents to get HPV vaccine for 11- to 12-year-old children. RESULTS: The highest proportion of parents (65%) and physicians (69%) found this brief message to be persuasive: "I strongly believe in the importance of this cancer-preventing vaccine for [child's name]." Parents disinclined to vaccinate were most receptive to messages with information about HPV infection being common, cancers caused by HPV, and HPV vaccine effectiveness. Parents' endorsement did not vary by race/ethnicity, education, child age, or child sex (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our national surveys of parents and physicians identified messages that could motivate HPV vaccination, even among parents disinclined to vaccinate their children. The lack of difference across demographic subgroups in parental endorsement may suggest that these messages can be used across these subgroups. IMPACT: Our findings support physicians' use of these messages with parents to help motivate uptake of this important cancer-preventing vaccine. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(10); 1383-91. ©2016 AACR.

Missing the Target for Routine Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Consistent and Strong Physician Recommendations Are Lacking for 11- to 12-Year-Old Males.

BACKGROUND: Rates of routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescent males in the United States are low. Leading health organizations advocate consistent and strong physician recommendations to improve HPV vaccine dissemination. This study describes the prevalence and correlates of consistent and strong physician recommendations for HPV vaccination of adolescent males. METHODS: We surveyed pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida about their HPV vaccine recommendations for male vaccine-eligible age groups (11-12, 13-17, 18-21 years). Descriptive statistics compared consistency and strength of HPV recommendations across age groups. Multivariable logistic regression examined factors associated with consistent and strong recommendations for 11- to 12-year-olds. RESULTS: We received 367 completed surveys (51% response rate). Physicians most often consistently and strongly recommended HPV vaccine to males ages 13 to 17 (39%) compared with ages 11 to 12 (31%) and 18 to 21 (31%). Consistent and strong recommendation for 11- to 12-year-old males was more likely to be delivered by Vaccine for Children providers and less likely among physicians who reported more personal barriers to vaccination, particularly concerns about vaccine safety, concerns about adding vaccines to the vaccine schedule, and difficulty in remembering to discuss HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' current consistency and strength of HPV vaccine recommendations do not align with national recommendations. Interventions to improve HPV vaccine recommendations must also consider the influence of physicians' personal barriers to HPV vaccine delivery. IMPACT: As one of the first studies to examine both consistency and strength of physicians' HPV vaccine recommendations for males, our findings can inform future interventions focused on facilitating physicians' recommendations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(10); 1435-46. ©2016 AACR.

Primary Care Physicians' Adherence to Expert Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention in the Context of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Expert recommendations do not recommend using Papanicolaou (Pap) or human papillomavirus (HPV) test results to determine whether unvaccinated women should receive HPV vaccine, nor do they recommend using vaccine receipt to inform cervical cancer screening practices. This study characterizes physicians' HPV vaccine recommendations and practices in the context of HPV and Pap testing. METHODS: We surveyed family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists randomly selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile in 2011 (n = 574). Physicians used a 5-point scale (never to always) to report the frequency of (1) using HPV testing results to decide whether to recommend HPV vaccine, and (2) recommending HPV vaccination to women (≤26 years) who had an abnormal Pap test. Physicians also reported (3) intention to change Pap screening frequency for vaccinated women. RESULTS: Across both specialties, 80% correctly reported rarely or never using HPV testing results to guide vaccine recommendations; 66% often or always recommended vaccination to patients with an abnormal Pap result; and 77% did not plan to change Pap screening frequency for vaccinated women. About 41% reported recommendation-consistent practices with all 3 measures. In multivariable analysis, obstetrician-gynecologist specialty and private practice type were associated with higher average overall adherence to recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expert recommendations, a considerable minority of physicians reported recommending HPV vaccination based on HPV and Pap test results. If these clinical practices persist, many young adult women will not realize the benefits of HPV vaccination. Additional efforts are needed to ensure all young women are screened and vaccinated appropriately.

The content and context of physicians' communication with males about human papillomavirus vaccination.

A physician's recommendation for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is a key predictor of vaccine uptake; however, little is known about how physicians communicate about HPV vaccine with male patients. We sought to describe physicians' HPV vaccine communication practices with males who are of vaccine-eligible age (9-26 years). We surveyed representative samples of pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida, and assessed whether physicians present HPV vaccine as optional or routine, and as a vaccine that prevents cancer. We also assessed the type of visit during which physicians discuss HPV vaccine with adolescent males and whether other healthcare providers in the practice discuss HPV vaccine or make the initial recommendation. We received 367 completed surveys (50.7% response rate). Few physicians (29.9%) reported they typically present HPV vaccine as routine to males ages 11-12 years, who constitute the target group for routine vaccination. When discussing HPV vaccination, many physicians reported somewhat or strongly emphasizing cancer prevention (80.0%). Physicians most often discussed HPV vaccine when they saw patients for well-child visits (93.0%) and least often at acute care visits (15.3%). Over half reported that at least one other healthcare professional in their practice discusses (56.1%) or makes the initial recommendation for (54.9%) HPV vaccination. Many physicians in our sample are presenting HPV vaccine as optional rather than routine and are missing opportunities to communicate with males about the vaccine. Our findings identify areas for future interventions to improve physicians' HPV vaccine communication and, ultimately, increase the use of this cancer-preventing vaccine.