Mixed methods evaluation of pediatric telehealth equity for patients/families who communicate in languages other than English.

Background: Emerging research demonstrates telehealth disparities for patients who communicate in languages other than English. A better understanding of pediatric telehealth use with families who communicate in languages other than English is needed to inform interventions to promote telehealth equity. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study of telehealth care in a children's hospital health system using electronic health record data for outpatient video telehealth encounters from April 2020 to July 2021 and qualitative interviews with clinical staff and Spanish-speaking parents of telehealth patients. Results: The 16-month study period included 102,387 telehealth encounters; 5% of which were encounters in languages other than English. 83% of languages other than English encounters were with patients/families with a preferred healthcare language of Spanish. 11% of providers conducted ≥10 languages other than English telehealth encounters. This subset of providers conducted 71% of all languages other than English encounters. We conducted 25 interviews with clinical staff (n=13) and parents (n=12). Common themes identified across interviews were: (I) technology barriers affect access to and quality of telehealth; (II) clinical staff and parents are uncertain about the future role of telehealth for patients/families who communicate in languages other than English; (III) the well-known impact of language barriers on in-person healthcare access and quality for patients who communicate in languages other than English is also evident in telehealth. Conclusions: Patients who communicate in languages other than English were underrepresented among telehealth encounters and encounters were concentrated among few providers. Promoting equitable telehealth care requires investment to address technology barriers, increase the readiness of providers and clinics to provide telehealth care in languages other than English, and continued attention to reducing the healthcare impact of language barriers.

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).

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.

"All of the things to everyone everywhere": A mixed methods analysis of community perspectives on equitable access to monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for COVID-19 prevents hospitalization and death but is underused, especially in racial/ethnic minority and rural populations. Reasons for underuse and inequity may include community member lack of awareness or healthcare access barriers, among others. This study assessed mAbs community awareness and opportunities for improving equitable mAb access. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods study including surveys and focus groups with adults with high-risk conditions or their proxy decision-makers. Surveys and focus group guides addressed diffusion of innovation theory factors. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact method was used to report and compare survey findings by race and ethnicity. Rapid qualitative methods were used for focus group analysis. RESULTS: Surveys from 515 individuals (460 English, 54 Spanish, 1 Amharic), and 8 focus groups (6 English, 2 Spanish) with 69 participants, completed June 2021 to January 2022. Most survey respondents (75%) had heard little or nothing about mAbs, but 95% would consider getting mAb treatment. Hispanic/Latino and Non-Hispanic People of Color (POC) reported less awareness, greater concern about intravenous infusions, and less trust in mAb safety and effectiveness than White, Non-Hispanic respondents. Focus group themes included little awareness but high interest in mAb treatment and concerns about cost and access barriers such as lacking established sources of care and travel from rural communities. Focus groups revealed preferences for broad-reaching but tailored messaging strategies using multiple media and trusted community leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite unfamiliarity with mAb treatment, most respondents were open to receiving mAbs or recommending mAbs to others. While mAb messaging should have broad reach "to everyone everywhere," racial and geographic disparities in awareness and trust about mAbs underscore need for tailored messaging to promote equitable access. Care processes should address patient-level barriers like transportation, insurance, or primary care access. COVID-19 treatment dissemination strategies should promote health equity.

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.

Why Aren't We Achieving High Vaccination Rates for Rotavirus Vaccine in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus vaccine (RV) coverage levels for US infants are <80%. METHODS: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians by internet/mail from April to June, 2019. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with difficulty administering the first RV dose (RV#1) by the maximum age. RESULTS: Response rate was 68% (303/448). Ninety-nine percent of providers reported strongly recommending RV. The most common barriers to RV delivery overall (definite/somewhat of a barrier) were: parental concerns about vaccine safety overall (27%), parents wanting to defer (25%), parents not thinking RV was necessary (12%), and parent concerns about RV safety (6%). The most commonly reported reasons for nonreceipt of RV#1 by 4 to 5 months (often/always) were parental vaccine refusal (9%), hospitals not giving RV at discharge from nursery (7%), infants past the maximum age when discharged from neonatal intensive care unit/nursery (6%), and infant not seen before maximum age for well care visit (3%) or seen but no vaccine given (4%). Among respondents 4% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed that they sometimes have difficulty giving RV#1 before the maximum age. Higher percentage of State Child Health Insurance Program/Medicaid-insured children in the practice and reporting that recommendations for timing of RV doses are too complicated were associated with reporting difficulty delivering the RV#1 by the maximum age. CONCLUSIONS: US pediatricians identified multiple, actionable issues that may contribute to suboptimal RV immunization rates including lack of vaccination prior to leaving nurseries after prolonged stays, infants not being seen for well care visits by the maximum age, missed opportunities at visits and parents refusing/deferring.

US Primary Care Providers' Experiences and Practices Related to Routine Pediatric Vaccination During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe, among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs), 1) changes made to routine childhood vaccination delivery as a result of the pandemic, and 2) perceived barriers to delivering vaccinations from March 2020 through the time of the survey. METHODS: A nationally representative survey among Peds and FPs was administered by mail or Internet in October-December 2020. RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (579/909). For children aged 0 to 2 years, among those who vaccinated that age group prepandemic (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 222), 5% of Peds and 15% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating these children at any time. For children aged 4 to 6 years (Peds n=264, FPs n = 229), 19% of Peds and 17% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. For children aged 11-18 years (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 251), 24% of Peds and 19% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. Nearly all reported returning to prepandemic vaccination services at the time of the survey. Factors most frequently reported as major/moderate barriers to providing vaccinations included fewer in-person visits because patients/parents were concerned about risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Peds, 52%; FPs, 54%), fewer in-person visits for sports clearance (Peds, 39%; FPs, 44%), and fewer back-to-school in-person visits because some children were in virtual learning (Peds, 25%; FPs, 33%). CONCLUSIONS: Although some physicians reported interrupting vaccination services at some point during the pandemic, the majority reported continuing to provide vaccinations throughout, with essentially all returning to prepandemic vaccination services by end of 2020.

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.

Physician attitudes regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Adult Immunization Schedule.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created out of the need to formalize vaccine recommendations for the United States. Annually, ACIP delivers recommendations to the CDC director for guidance about United States vaccine use and publishes the Adult Immunization Schedule. Updated schedules feature changes to vaccine recommendations as well as changes to the schedule's usability for physicians. The objective of this study was to determine physicians' attitudes about the Adult Immunization Schedule. Surveys were administered to a sentinel physician network from October 2019 through January 2020. Physicians that responded were comfortable using the Adult Immunization Schedule, but reported confusion about some medical condition-based indications. Physicians reported a lack engagement with mobile applications, CDC Vaccine Schedules and Shots by STFM (the Society for Teachers of Family Medicine). Future work should focus on increasing clarity regarding the recommendations with medical condition-based indications and increasing knowledge of mobile applications for physicians.

Physician survey regarding updated PCV13 vaccine recommendations for adults ≥65 years.

BACKGROUND: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended discontinuing the routine use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among adults aged ≥65 years and instead recommended PCV13 be used based on shared clinical decision making (SCDM). OBJECTIVES: We wanted to assess among primary care physicians (1) knowledge and attitudes regarding the new SCDM PCV13 recommendation and (2) how the new recommendation will affect their likelihood of recommending PCV13 to adults aged ≥65 years. DESIGN: This was done by mail and internet-based survey, which was conducted October 2019 through January 2020. The study was carried out on a nationally representative sample of general internists (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs). RESULTS: The response rate was 64% (617/968, GIM 57%, FP 71%). Only 41% of respondents were aware of the SCDM PCV13 recommendation in adults aged ≥65 years; 76% agreed (37% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") that their patients aged ≥65 years will get confused by having a SCDM recommendation for PCV13 and a routine recommendation for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23); 60% agreed (18% "Strongly," 42% "Somewhat") that they were unsure of what points to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation with an adult aged ≥65 years about receiving PCV13. Just over 50% reported they would be less likely to recommend PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years as a result of the new recommendation, but 42% reported that their recommendation for PCV13 would not change. CONCLUSIONS: Word of the new ACIP recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years needs to be further disseminated. Investigation into why some physicians do not plan to change their recommendations is warranted.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspective on Pharmacists Delivering Vaccines to Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2009, pharmacists in all 50 states have been authorized to provide vaccinations to adults. The objective of this study was to assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) experiences with and attitudes about pharmacists administering vaccinations. METHODS: Internet and mail survey of PCPs representative of American College of Physicians' and American Academy of Family Physicians' memberships. RESULTS: Response rate was 69% (642/926). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed (79% "Strongly," 19% "Somewhat") that it is their responsibility to assure their adult patients receive recommended vaccinations. Most respondents agreed that pharmacists either did not have access to patient medical information (33% "Strongly," 45% "Somewhat") or did not have adequate vaccination history (33% "Strongly," 41% "Somewhat"). The majority also agreed that pharmacists did not inform them when vaccinations were given (35% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") and did not enter vaccinations administered into immunization information systems (IISs) (20% "Strongly," 37% "Somewhat"). However, 83% agreed (31% "Strongly," 52% "Somewhat") that it is helpful to have pharmacists share the role of vaccinating adults. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs have mixed feelings about pharmacists delivering vaccines. Universal use of IISs by pharmacists could partially address physicians' concerns by providing a systematic way for pharmacists and physicians to share patient vaccination histories.

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.

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.

US Primary Care Physicians' Viewpoints on HPV Vaccination for Adults 27 to 45 Years.

INTRODUCTION: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended shared clinical decision making (SCDM) regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians 1) recent practice regarding HPV vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years, 2) knowledge of HPV and the new SCDM recommendation, and 3) attitudes toward and anticipated effect of the new SCDM recommendation. METHODS: From October to December 2019, we administered an Internet and mail survey to national networks of 494 general internist (GIM) and 474 family physician (FP) members of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians, respectively. RESULTS: Response rate was 64% (617/968; GIM, 57%; FP, 71%). Fifty-eight percent were aware of the new ACIP recommendation; 42% had recommended HPV vaccination to adults 27 to 45 years, but most had administered HPV vaccine to very few of these patients (73% to 0% and 22% to 1 to 3). Fifty-five percent and 63% were unaware that HPV vaccination does not prevent progression of existing HPV-related cancers or infections, respectively and 57% were not sure what to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation about HPV vaccination. A majority reported they will be more likely recommend HPV vaccination to adults in the 27-to-45-year age range as a result of the new recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are interested in recommending HPV vaccination for adults age 27 to 45 years despite ACIP not routinely recommending it in this age range. The majority need more education about the optimal use of HPV vaccine in this age group.

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.