Conceptualizing vaccine champions from an implementation science perspective: Findings from a national survey of primary care health professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical champions are healthcare professionals who help their colleagues improve the delivery of evidence-based care. Because little is known about champions working in the context of adolescent vaccination, we sought to identify vaccine champion roles among primary care health professionals (PCHPs). METHODS: In 2022, we surveyed 2527 US PCHPs who serve adolescents. The survey assessed the extent to which respondents identified as vaccine champions and the activities they performed. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we used these data to categorize PCHPs as: champions who led projects to increase vaccination rates ("implementation leaders"); facilitating champions who more generally shared vaccination data, information, and encouragement ("facilitators"); or non-champions. We used multinomial logistic regression to identify correlates of being a leader or facilitator as opposed to a non-champion. RESULTS: About one-fifth (21%) of PCHPs were implementation leaders, one-quarter (25%) were facilitators, and the remainder (54%) were non-champions. Leaders were more common among PCHPs with medium or high versus low practice experience (31% and 36% versus 20%, both p < .01) and adolescent patient volume (29% and 39% versus 17%, both p < .01). Being a facilitator was also associated with higher practice experience and patient volume. Leaders and facilitators reported a similar number of barriers to their work (mean = 1.8 and 1.9, respectively), with time and competing quality metrics being most common. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both implementation leaders and facilitators are common vaccine champions in adolescent primary care. These champions are more often found among PCHPs with higher experience and patient volume.

"No room for error": a qualitative interview study of experiences with health insurance coverage loss and COVID-19 pandemic relief policies among people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unemployment and associated health insurance loss, prompting an unprecedented adoption of emergency policies, including economic relief efforts and health insurance coverage expansion. We sought to understand pandemic-related challenges for people with asthma and how emergency policies served families facing both chronic disease management and health insurance loss. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHODS: In 2021, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 21 adults who had asthma and lost employment and employer-sponsored health insurance coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used thematic analysis to assess how health and economic policies affected participants' ability to access care and manage their asthma. RESULTS: Participants reported reduced access to care, as well as worry about heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 due to their asthma. While insurance loss exacerbated these challenges, participants indicated that economic relief efforts, including direct stimulus payments, helped them afford needed asthma care. Participants were more critical of enhancements to existing coverage policies such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) due to difficulty understanding, accessing, and affording such coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore that people affected by asthma and health insurance loss benefit from policies that provide flexible and easy-to-use assistance, such as direct payments, for meeting the diverse challenges posed by living with a chronic disease. Although policies that expand health insurance coverage are critical, more attention is needed to help people with chronic conditions access these programs in a timely way.

Identifying effective vaccine champions: Findings from a national survey of primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine champions are common in primary care, but little is known about which champions are effective. METHODS: In 2022, we surveyed 2,144 US primary care professionals (PCPs) who reported working with vaccine champions. Respondents rated the champion with whom they worked most closely on their effectiveness at improving vaccination rates. RESULTS: About half (49 %) of PCPs perceived their closest champion as highly effective. PCPs perceived advanced practice providers and nursing staff as highly effective somewhat more often than physicians (52 % and 58 % vs 43 %, p <.001). Other correlates of perceived effectiveness included being a formally appointed versus informal champion, working extremely versus less closely with PCPs, and using a high (4-5) versus low (0-1) number of implementation strategies to improve vaccination rates (all p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest vaccine champions may benefit from having formal roles and opportunities to work closely with colleagues to improve vaccination rates using multiple strategies.

Who are vaccine champions and what implementation strategies do they use to improve adolescent HPV vaccination? Findings from a national survey of primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science researchers often cite clinical champions as critical to overcoming organizational resistance and other barriers to the implementation of evidence-based health services, yet relatively little is known about who champions are or how they effect change. To inform future efforts to identify and engage champions to support HPV vaccination, we sought to describe the key characteristics and strategies of vaccine champions working in adolescent primary care. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted a national survey with a web-based panel of 2527 primary care professionals (PCPs) with a role in adolescent HPV vaccination (57% response rate). Our sample consisted of pediatricians (26%), family medicine physicians (22%), advanced practice providers (24%), and nursing staff (28%). Our survey assessed PCPs' experience with vaccine champions, defined as health care professionals "known for helping their colleagues improve vaccination rates." RESULTS: Overall, 85% of PCPs reported currently working with one or more vaccine champions. Among these 2144 PCPs, most identified the champion with whom they worked most closely as being a physician (40%) or nurse (40%). Almost all identified champions worked to improve vaccination rates for vaccines in general (45%) or HPV vaccine specifically (49%). PCPs commonly reported that champion implementation strategies included sharing information (79%), encouragement (62%), and vaccination data (59%) with colleagues, but less than half reported that champions led quality improvement projects (39%). Most PCPs perceived their closest champion as being moderately to extremely effective at improving vaccination rates (91%). PCPs who did versus did not work with champions more often recommended HPV vaccination at the earliest opportunity of ages 9-10 rather than later ages (44% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of our national study suggest that vaccine champions are common in adolescent primary care, but only a minority lead quality improvement projects. Interventionists seeking to identify champions to improve HPV vaccination rates can expect to find them among both physicians and nurses, but should be prepared to offer support to more fully engage them in implementing interventions.

Identifying Healthcare Professionals With Lower Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Recommendation Quality: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Strengthening healthcare professionals' (HCPs) communication is an evidence-based approach to increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among adolescents. To better target future interventions, we sought to synthesize evidence on HCP subgroups who most need to improve their HPV vaccine recommendation quality. METHODS: We searched five databases for quantitative studies published from 2012 to 2022 on HPV vaccine recommendation quality, including recommendation consistency and strength, for United States adolescents. Two coders independently abstracted data from each eligible study, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We summarized variation in recommendation quality by clinical and HCP characteristics. RESULTS: The 28 eligible studies indicated that relatively low proportions of HCPs used higher-quality recommendation practices (median: 61% across 30 measures) and that recommendation quality varied across HCP subgroups. The most consistent findings were that more pediatric HCPs used higher-quality recommendations than family medicine HCPs (8 of 11 studies, 2-60 percentage point difference) and that HPV-related knowledge was associated with higher recommendation quality (four of seven studies). Most studies observed no differences in recommendation quality by clinical role (e.g., provider vs. nurse) or HCP demographics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity). DISCUSSION: Studies suggest a substantial need to improve HCPs' recommendation quality, with opportunities for targeting future interventions.