An Exploratory Study of Rural Parents' Knowledge and Attitudes About HPV Vaccination Following a Healthcare Visit With Their Child's Primary Care Provider.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Annually, HPV infections result in $775 million in direct medical costs and approximately 46 000 new cases of HPV-associated cancers. Safe and highly effective vaccines have been available to prevent HPV for children/adolescents since 2006. Vaccination rates remain low, especially in rural areas. Parental attitudes and beliefs affect HPV vaccination rates. METHODS: We developed, tested, and administered a survey that asked how parents and healthcare providers interacted about the HPV vaccine following a healthcare visit with an age-eligible child, as part of a multicomponent randomized controlled trial designed to improve HPV vaccination rates in rural Oregon. The 21-item survey assessed parents' information-seeking behavior, knowledge about HPV cancer risk reduction, the HPV vaccine series, and their vaccine confidence. RESULTS: Forty-three participants (59.7%) were in the intervention group; 29 (40.3%) were controls. Over 90% of healthcare visits were illness, injury, sports physical, or well-child visits (n = 67 or 93.1%), and 6.9% of visits were vaccine-specific. No statistically significant differences were found between study groups for healthcare visits. Over half the parents reported having discussions about HPV and the HPV vaccine (54.5%) with their care providers, 31.3% had recently learned about HPV, HPV risks, and the HPV vaccine prior to the visit, 83.1% were knowledgeable about cancers associated with HPV, and 79.2% were considering vaccinating their child(ren), which did not differ between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about HPV-related cancers and consideration for vaccinating children was higher than expected, but not associated with the intervention tested.

A comparison of electronic health records and the Oregon state immunization registry for human papilloma virus vaccine delivery (2005-2022).

INTRODUCTION: Immunization Information Systems (IIS) play an important information-sharing role at the point of care, and provide vital vaccination data for research studies and policy-makers. Previous validation studies comparing the accuracy of state registry data to health records have had mixed results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of EHR vaccination data for 9-17 year-old patients from 10 Oregon primary care clinics who had at least one ambulatory care visit in the past 3 years from the date of validation data collection. Data on 100 age eligible youth were captured per clinic. We compared HPV and Tdap vaccinations captured in the EHR to the Oregon ALERT IIS. All clinics were located in rural areas with both family medicine (n = 7) and pediatric (n = 3) primary care clinics. RESULTS: Overall agreement for HPV vaccination between EHR and ALERT IIS was 89.4 % (k = 0.83; p < 0.05). For Tdap vaccination overall agreement was 80.8 % (k = 0.60; p < 0.05). Pediatric clinics showed a higher overall vaccine agreement for both HPV at 93.3 % (k = 0.89; p < 0.05) and Tdap at 95.3 % (k = 0.90; p < 0.05). Among clinics that used bidirectional data exchange (only family medicine clinics), HPV agreement was higher at 91 % (k = 0.85) versus 88 % (k = 0.81; p < 0.05) and was lower for Tdap 75 % with bidirectional data exchange (k = 0.50) versus 86 % without bidirectional data exchange (k = 0.70; p < 0.05). When the EHR and ALERT IIS disagreed, ALERT ISS usually had additional vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: ALERT IIS data provides more accurate data than EHRs can provide when measuring vaccine delivery among adolescents in rural Oregon.

Integrating Patient-generated Digital Health Data into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in Ambulatory Care Settings: EHR Vendor Survey and Interviews.

Data traditionally collected in a clinic or hospital setting is now collected electronically in everyday environments from patients, known as patient-generated health data (PGHD). We conducted informal interviews and collected survey data from major ambulatory care EHR vendors that serve the majority of the U.S. market to collect information on how their clients are integrating PGHD into EHRs. Of the 9 EHR vendors contacted, 6 completed the survey and 5 participated in a 45-minute interview. Feedback from the vendors included how PGHD use has steadily risen over the past decade and how the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated PGHD use. Pathways for data from devices or surveys to be brought securely into the EHR are increasing. While promising, adoption of health IT systems has its challenges. There are disparities in EHRs, devices, and applications. We concluded that more supportive policies are needed to advance PGHD integration.

The interface between U.S. primary care clinics and pharmacies for HPV vaccination delivery: A scoping literature review.

Completion of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine series remains low. Partnerships between primary care (PC) clinics and local pharmacies could boost vaccination rates. We conducted a scoping literature review to address what is known and what gaps exist on the interface between U.S. primary care clinics and pharmacies for HPV vaccination. We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL file and Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature for articles published between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2020. Search subjects included: 1) Pharmacy HPV Vaccination, 2) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration, and 3) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration vaccination. We developed an abstraction form to collect information on research methods, settings, strengths, weaknesses and findings. We screened 407 articles for inclusion; 17 met inclusion criteria: 13 (76.5%) reported on observational/descriptive studies; 4 articles (23.5%) reported on intervention studies, none of which were conducted in rural areas. Observational studies focused on willingness to be vaccinated for HPV and facilitators and barriers for vaccination, especially at pharmacies. Many studies concluded that knowledge about and comfort with HPV vaccine administration were needed for all vaccination stakeholders (clinicians, pharmacists, parents, and patients). Intervention studies were small with weak study designs, many of which revealed that pharmacists were not successful in integrating services into broader primary care systems. Challenges included getting physicians to sign standing order protocols, poor service delivery due to engagement barriers, and low parental demand for pharmacists to administer the vaccine. In conclusion, larger more discerning studies are needed to fully understand the potential of primary care and pharmacy interactions for HPV vaccination.

"It's Really Like Any Other Study": Rural Radiology Facilities Performing Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening.

Rationale: The majority of eligible people have not been screened for lung cancer. There is emerging evidence that there are location-based disparities applicable to lung cancer screening (LCS). Objectives: To describe LCS radiologic services in rural Oregon and understand the barriers and facilitators to implementation of LCS using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Methods: This was a mixed-method descriptive study using surveys and semistructured interviews of key informants. We approached representatives from all 37 small and rural hospitals in Oregon. We purposively interviewed key informants from a subset based on LDCT implementation outcomes. Results: We surveyed representatives from 29 radiology facilities and qualitatively interviewed 18 key informants from 19 facilities (representing 12 healthcare systems). Among the surveyed radiology facilities, 59% were performing LDCT for LCS. Key informants reported that facilities that performed this service were often motivated by community needs and were less motivated by financial gain or evidence strength, and all described the importance of having a champion. Key informants described that LCS programmatic components that were within their normal scope of practice (e.g., specifying the LDCT parameters) were burdensome to establish but that barriers were surmountable. Most informants reported they did not perform other components of high-quality programs (e.g., ensuring adherence to recommended follow-up testing) and suggested that these steps were important but were the responsibility of primary care providers. Conclusions: Many rural hospital facilities in Oregon offer LDCT for LCS but do not perform all the recommended components of a screening program. Disparities in LCS use and adherence are unlikely to be solved by an exclusive focus at the radiology facility level and may require additional interventions at the primary care level.