Implementation of the Standards for adult immunization practice: A survey of U.S. Health care providers.

The revised Standards for Adult Immunization Practice ("Standards"), published in 2014, recommend routine vaccination assessment, strong provider recommendation, vaccine administration or referral, and documentation of vaccines administered into immunization information systems (IIS). We assessed clinician and pharmacist implementation of the Standards in the United States from 2016 to 2018. Participating clinicians (family and internal medicine physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, specialty physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and pharmacists responded using an internet panel survey. Weighted proportion of clinicians and pharmacists reporting full implementation of each component of the Standards were calculated. Adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) estimates of practice characteristics associated with self-reported implementation of the Standards are also presented. Across all medical specialties, the percentages of clinicians and pharmacists implementing the vaccine assessment and recommendation components of the Standards were >80.0%. However, due to low IIS documentation, full implementation of the Standards was low overall, ranging from 30.4% for specialty medicine to 45.8% in family medicine clinicians. The presence of an immunization champion (APR, 1.40 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.26 to 1.54]), use of standing orders (APR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.57]), and use of a patient reminder-recall system (APR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54]) were positively associated with adherence to the Standards by clinicians. Similar results were observed for pharmacists. Nonetheless, vaccination improvement strategies, i.e., having standing orders in place, empowering an immunization champion, and using patient recall-reminder systems were underutilized in clinical settings; full implementation of the Standards was inconsistent across all health care provider practices.

Factors associated with perceptions of influenza vaccine safety and effectiveness among adults, United States, 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND: Annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is widely recognized as the primary intervention method in preventing morbidity and mortality from influenza, but coverage among adults is suboptimal in the United States. Safety and effectiveness perceptions regarding vaccines are consistently cited as factors that influence adults' decisions to accept or reject vaccination. Therefore, we conducted this analysis in order to understand sociodemographic, attitude, and knowledge factors associated with these perceptions for influenza vaccine among adults in three different age groups. METHODS: Probability-based Internet panel surveys using nationally representative samples of adults aged ≥19 years in the United States were conducted during February-March of 2017 and 2018. We asked respondents if they believed the influenza vaccine was safe and effective. We calculated prevalence ratios using chi-square and pairwise t-tests to determine associations between safety and effectiveness beliefs and sociodemographic variables for adults aged 19-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years. RESULTS: Survey completion rates were 58.2% (2017) and 57.2% (2018); we analyzed 4597 combined responses. Overall, most adults reported the influenza vaccine was safe (86.3%) and effective (73.0%). However, fewer younger adults reported positive perceptions compared with older age groups. Respondents who believed the vaccine was safe also reported it was effective. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, adults perceived the influenza vaccine as safe and effective. Considering this, any improvements to these perceptions would likely be minor and have a limited effect on coverage. Future research to understand why, despite positive perceptions, adults are still choosing to forego the vaccine may be informative.

Alcohol consumption and breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality in women diagnosed with breast cancer at the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

PURPOSE: Alcohol consumption is an established and important risk factor for breast cancer incidence in the general population. However, the relationship between alcohol and mortality among women with breast cancer is less clear. This study examines the effect of alcohol consumption on mortality in women affected with breast cancer at baseline from a high-risk family breast and ovarian cancer registry. METHODS: We studied 1116 women affected with breast cancer at baseline from the Metropolitan New York Registry. The examined reported alcohol consumption (total of beer, wine, liquor) was defined as the average number of drinks per week reported from age 12 to age at baseline. We assessed vital status of each participant using participant or family reported data and we used the National Death Index to supplement deaths reported through family updates. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between alcohol intake and overall mortality (HRO), breast cancer-specific mortality (HRBC), and non-breast cancer mortality (HRNBC), adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 9.1 years, we observed 211 total deaths and 58 breast cancer deaths. Compared to non-drinkers, we found that both low and moderate to heavy levels of alcohol intake were not associated with greater overall mortality (≤3 drinks/week: HRO: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.38-1.14); > 3 drinks/week: HRO: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.85-1.58), breast cancer-specific mortality (≤ 3 drinks/week: HRBC:0.62, 95% CI: 0.19-2.03; >3 drinks/week: HR BC: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.49-1.89), or non-breast cancer-specific mortality (≤3 drinks/week: HR NBC: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.32-1.6; >3 drinks/week: HRNBC: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.75-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol intake reported from age 12 to age at baseline was not associated with overall or breast cancer-specific mortality in this cohort of affected women with a family history of breast cancer.

The impact of cancer prevention guideline adherence on overall mortality in a high-risk cohort of women from the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends at least 150 min of moderate intensity physical activity per week, alcohol intake of ≤1 drink per day, and maintaining a body mass index (BMI) of <25 kg/m(2) for breast cancer prevention. Adherence to these guidelines has been linked to lower overall mortality in average-risk populations, it is not known if mortality reduction extends to women at higher risk given their family history of breast cancer. We followed 2,905 women from a high-risk Breast Cancer Family Registry in New York, of which 77 % were white non-Hispanic and 23 % were Hispanic. We collected information on BMI, physical activity, and alcohol intake at baseline and prospectively followed our cohort for outcomes based on questionnaires and National Death Index linkage. We used Cox regression to examine the relation between adherence to ACS guidelines and overall mortality and examined effect modification by race, age, and BRCA status. There were 312 deaths after an average of 9.2 ± 4.1 years of follow-up. Adherence to all three ACS recommendations was associated with 44-53 % lower mortality in women unaffected with breast cancer at baseline [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.56, 95 % CI (0.33-0.93)] and in women affected with breast cancer at baseline [HR 0.47, 95 % CI (0.30-0.74)]. These associations remained after stratification by age, race, and BRCA status {e.g., BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 carriers [HR 0.39, 95 % CI (0.16-0.97)]}. These results support that women at high risk, similar to women at average risk, may also have substantial benefits from maintaining the ACS guidelines.

Validation of family cancer history data in high-risk families: the influence of cancer site, ethnicity, kinship degree, and multiple family reporters.

Information on family cancer history (FCH) is often collected for first-degree relatives, but more extensive FCH information is critical for greater accuracy in risk assessment. Using self-reported diagnosis of cancer as the gold standard, we examined differences in the sensitivity and specificity of relative-reported FCH by cancer site, race/ethnicity, language preference, and kinship degree (1,524 individuals from 557 families; average number of relatives per family = 2.7). We evaluated the impact of FCH data collected in 2007-2013 from multiple relatives by comparing mean values and proportions for the number of relatives with any cancer, breast cancer, or ovarian cancer as reported by a single relative and by multiple relatives in the same family. The sensitivity of FCH was lower in Hispanics, Spanish-speaking persons, and third-degree relatives (e.g., for all cancers, sensitivities were 80.7%, 87.4%, and 91.0% for third-, second-, and first-degree relatives, respectively). FCH reported by multiple relatives included a higher number of relatives with cancer than the number reported by a single relative (e.g., mean increase of 1.2 relatives with any cancer), with more relatives diagnosed with any cancer, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer in 52%, 36% and 12% of families, respectively. Collection of FCH data from multiple relatives may provide a more comprehensive picture of FCH and may potentially improve risk assessment and preventive care.