Misinformation and other elements in HPV vaccine tweets: an experimental comparison.

Our study examined how misinformation and other elements of social media messages affect antecedents to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescents. In 2017-2018, we randomly assigned a national sample of 1206 U.S. parents of adolescents to view one tweet using a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment. The 16 experimental tweets varied four messaging elements: misinformation (misinformation or not), source (person or organization), narrative style (storytelling or scientific data), and topic (effectiveness or safety). Parents reported their motivation to vaccinate (primary outcome), trust in social media content, and perceived risk about HPV-related diseases. Tweets without misinformation elicited higher HPV vaccine motivation than tweets with misinformation (25% vs. 5%, OR = 6.60, 95% CI:4.05, 10.75). Motivation was higher for tweets from organizations versus persons (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.47, 95% CI:1.52, 4.03) and about effectiveness versus safety (20% vs. 10%, OR = 2.03, 95% CI:1.24, 3.30). Tweets with misinformation produced lower trust and higher perceived risk (both p < .01), with impact varying depending on source and topic. In conclusion, misinformation was the most potent social media messaging element. It may undermine progress in HPV vaccination.

Stories about HPV vaccine in social media, traditional media, and conversations.

How stories from media and social interactions shape parents' HPV vaccination decisions is poorly understood. We sought to characterize parents' exposure to such stories, as well as associations between story exposure and vaccination behavior. Study participants were 1263 parents of U.S. adolescents who had not yet completed the HPV vaccine series. In 2017, these parents completed an online survey about whether they had heard stories of people who were harmed by HPV vaccine or who got diseases HPV vaccine could have prevented. Almost half of parents had heard HPV vaccine stories, which were about vaccine harms only (19%), vaccine preventable diseases only (11%), or both (15%). Stories of harms more often came from social and traditional media; stories of preventable diseases more often came from conversations (all p < 0.01). Parents who heard only stories about harms were less likely than those who heard no stories to have initiated HPV vaccination (23% vs. 33%, aOR:0.48; 95% CI:0.33:0.69). They were more likely to have delayed (79% vs. 66%, aOR:2.00; 95% CI:1.09:3.71) or refused (72% vs. 24%, aOR:8.87; 95% CI:4.09:19.25) HPV vaccination. Exposure to both stories about harms and preventable diseases was similarly associated with initiation, delay and refusal. Exposure to only stories about preventable diseases was not associated with initiation, delay or refusal. In conclusion, stories of HPV vaccine harms may be associated more strongly with vaccination behavior than stories of HPV vaccine preventable diseases. Communication campaigns should consider strategies to elevate stories of preventable diseases in social and traditional media.

Provider response and follow-up to parental declination of HPV vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: Parents often decline HPV vaccination, but little is known about how healthcare providers should promote vaccination at a later visit for secondary acceptance. We examined the associations of two factors, providers' response to declination during the visit and follow-up after the visit, with secondary acceptance. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US parents whose 9- to 17-year-old child had not yet completed the HPV vaccination series. Parents who declined HPV vaccination during an initial discussion with a provider (n = 447) reported whether their provider engaged in any active response during the visit (e.g., giving information, trying to change their mind) or any follow-up after the visit (e.g., scheduling another visit). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine whether an active response or follow-up was associated with secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. RESULTS: Only about one-third of parents reported an active response during the visit (35%) or follow-up after the visit (39%) following HPV vaccination declination. Parents had higher odds of secondary acceptance of HPV vaccine if they received any provider follow-up after the visit (43% vs. 20%, aOR:3.19; 95% CI:2.00:5.07). Receipt of an active provider response was not associated with secondary acceptance. More parents thought a provider should actively respond and follow-up (61% and 68% respectively), compared with those who received such a response (both p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Providers' follow-up after the visit may be important for promoting secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination. Parents who decline HPV vaccination often prefer to receive an active response or follow-up from a provider.

Prioritizing and implementing HPV vaccination quality improvement programs in healthcare systems: the perspective of quality improvement leaders.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination could prevent most of the ~34,000 HPV-attributable cancers diagnosed annually in the US, but uptake remains suboptimal. Healthcare systems are key partners in implementing HPV vaccination quality improvement (QI) programs. To inform future system-level HPV vaccine initiatives, we sought to understand HPV vaccine QI from the perspective of QI program leaders in healthcare systems. We conducted telephone interviews with a multi-state sample of 17 QI leaders in 15 systems. We analyzed data qualitatively via thematic analysis to describe QI leaders' perspectives on prioritizing and implementing HPV vaccine QI. All QI leaders endorsed HPV vaccination as beneficial, and some had already prioritized increasing uptake to improve adolescent health and meet payor reimbursement standards. Those not prioritizing HPV vaccination cited concerns including the relatively small size of adolescent patient populations, lack of buy-in among providers, and the need to focus on health services perceived as more profitable or urgent. When implementing HPV vaccine QI programs, QI leaders reported key barriers to be the lack of robust data systems and acceptable QI metrics, limited time, and pressures of a fee-for-service clinical environment. Facilitators included automation and standardization in QI efforts and passionate vaccine champions. Almost all QI leaders reported future plans to implement HPV vaccine QI projects. Findings suggest that many healthcare systems are motivated to improve HPV vaccination. However, resistance to guideline-consistent quality metrics, the narrow target of one vaccine in the adolescent patient population, payment structures, and constrained time of providers are key barriers to practice improvements.

Disparities in Healthcare Providers' Recommendation of HPV Vaccination for U.S. Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

Infrequent provider recommendations continue to be a key barrier to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, including among adolescents at higher risk for future HPV cancers. To inform future interventions, we sought to characterize disparities in health care providers' HPV vaccine recommendation for U.S. adolescents. We systematically reviewed studies published in 2012-2019 that assessed provider HPV vaccine recommendations for adolescents aged 9-17. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we identified 52 eligible studies and used a standardized abstraction form to assess recommendation prevalence by adolescent demographic characteristics. Studies consistently found that fewer parents of boys than girls reported receiving HPV vaccine recommendations (14 studies, range of difference: -11 to -35 percentage points). Studies also found fewer recommendations for adolescents who were younger (2 studies, -3% to -12% points), non-White (3 studies, -5% to -7% points, females only), lower income (3 studies, -1% to -8% points), or uninsured (1 study, -21% points, males only). Studies identified geographic disparities in southern and rural areas. In conclusion, findings from this systematic review identify disparities in HPV vaccine recommendation that may contribute to suboptimal vaccine uptake. Efforts to improve providers' HPV vaccine communication should focus on increasing recommendation consistency, especially for lower-income, non-White, and rural adolescents.

Easing Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Hesitancy: A Communication Experiment With U.S. Parents.

INTRODUCTION: The Announcement Approach using presumptive announcements increases human papillomavirus vaccine uptake. This study seeks to understand the impact of the final Announcement Approach steps-easing parents' vaccine concerns and then encouraging them to get human papillomavirus vaccine for their children-on parents' human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the vaccine's benefits. METHODS: In 2017-2018, investigators recruited an online national sample of 1,196 U.S. parents of children aged 9-17 years who had not yet completed the human papillomavirus vaccine series. Following the steps of the Announcement Approach, participants viewed brief videos of a pediatrician announcing that a child was due for human papillomavirus vaccine (shown to all the parents). In the 2 × 2 experiment, parents saw (1) a video of the pediatrician attempting to ease a concern that the parent had raised earlier in the survey (Ease video), (2) a video of the pediatrician encouraging the parent to get their child vaccinated (Encourage video), (3) both videos, or (4) neither of the videos. Data analysis was conducted in spring 2020. RESULTS: Seeing the Ease video message led to lower human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy than not seeing it (mean=2.71, SD=1.29 vs mean=2.97, SD=1.33; p<0.001). The beneficial impact of easing concerns on lower vaccine hesitancy was explained by higher confidence (p<0.05). By contrast, the Encourage video had no impact on human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy or confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing parents' concerns can decrease human papillomavirus vaccine hesitancy and increase confidence. On the basis of these findings, the Announcement Approach retained its emphasis on announcing that children are due for vaccination and easing parent concerns.

Talking about recommended age or fewer doses: what motivates HPV vaccination timeliness?

HPV vaccination is recommended for U.S. adolescents at ages 11-12 and requires two versus three doses if the series is started before age 15. We evaluated how talking about recommended age or fewer doses motivates on-time HPV vaccination. Our national, online experiment randomized 1,263 parents of adolescents to view one of three messages about HPV vaccination recommendations or no message. Messages framed guidelines as recommending: vaccination at age 11-12; fewer doses for those who start vaccination at age 11-12; or, fewer doses for those who start vaccination before age 15. We then assessed parents' preferred age for HPV vaccination, categorizing preferences of ≤12 years as on-time. Parents who viewed "at age 11-12" versus no message more often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (63% vs. 43%, p < .05) and did not differ from those viewing "fewer doses at age 11-12" (63% vs. 64%, p > .05). Parents who viewed "fewer doses before age 15" less often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (39%, p < .05). Recommending HPV vaccination at age 11-12 encouraged on-time vaccination, while offering fewer doses had little impact. Providers should avoid framing HPV vaccination guidelines in reference to age 15 because doing so may discourage on-time vaccination by introducing confusion about the recommended age.

Implementing Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve HPV Vaccine Delivery.

BACKGROUND: High-quality evidence indicates that intervening with health care providers improves human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine delivery. However, scaling up evidence-based strategies in real-world clinical practice remains challenging. We sought to improve the reach and impact of strategies for HPV vaccination quality improvement (QI) through local adaptation and implementation in a large, not-for-profit health care system. METHODS: We conducted an HPV vaccination QI program using existing materials to support physician training coupled with assessment and feedback. Local physicians with high HPV vaccination rates facilitated training, which included didactic instruction and video vignettes modeling effective communication. We randomly assigned 25 clinics with 77 physicians to the QI arm or the wait-list control arm. We used hierarchical linear models to assess HPV vaccination coverage (≥1 dose) over 6 months among patients aged 12 to 14. RESULTS: Of 45 physicians in the QI arm, the program reached 43 (95%) with training plus assessment and feedback. In the overall sample, HPV vaccination coverage increased in both the QI and control arms (8.6 vs 6.4 percentage points, respectively), although the 2.2-percentage point difference did not reach statistical significance. Sensitivity analyses that excluded physicians with poor data quality indicated a statistically significant advantage of 3.3 percentage points for QI versus control (b = 0.034; SE = 0.015; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our locally adapted QI program achieved excellent reach, with small improvements in HPV vaccination coverage. Future implementation research is needed to bolster program impact and support health systems in leveraging local resources to conduct these programs efficiently.

Questions and Concerns About HPV Vaccine: A Communication Experiment.

: media-1vid110.1542/5972295740001PEDS-VA_2018-1872Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify effective responses to parents' questions and concerns about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. METHODS: In 2017-2018, we surveyed a national sample of 1196 US parents of children aged 9 to 17 years. We recorded brief videos of a pediatrician providing messages that addressed 7 HPV vaccination topics that commonly elicit questions or concerns (eg, recommended age). We randomly assigned parents to 1 of the message topics; parents then viewed 4 videos on that topic in random order and evaluated the messages. RESULTS: Parents were more confident in HPV vaccine when they were exposed to messages that addressed lack of knowledge about HPV vaccine (b = 0.13; P = .01), messages that included information about cancer prevention (b = 0.11; P < .001), messages that required a higher reading level (b = 0.02; P = .01), and messages that were longer (b = 0.03; P < .001). Parents were less confident in HPV vaccine when exposed to messages in which urgency was expressed (b = -0.06; P = .005). Analyses conducted by using HPV vaccine motivation as an outcome revealed the same pattern of findings. CONCLUSIONS: We provide research-tested messages that providers can use to address parents' HPV vaccination questions and concerns about 7 common topics. Important principles for increasing message effectiveness are to include information on the benefits of vaccination (including cancer prevention) and avoid expressing urgency to vaccinate when addressing parents' questions or concerns. Additionally, providers may need to be prepared to have longer conversations with parents who express concerns about HPV vaccine, especially regarding safety and side effects.