Explore the vast range of titles available.

While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination. In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11–17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal. 2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent’s health-care provider’s recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal. HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.

Background Studies have noted variations in the cost-effectiveness of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV), but little is known about how SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may vary by targeted age group (e.g., elementary or secondary school students), or vaccine consent process (paper-based or web-based). Further, SLIV’s cost-effectiveness may be impacted by its spillover effect on practice-based vaccination; prior studies have not addressed this issue. Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on two SLIV programs in upstate New York in 2015–2016: (a) elementary school SLIV using a stepped wedge design with schools as clusters (24 suburban and 18 urban schools) and (b) secondary school SLIV using a cluster randomized trial (16 suburban and 4 urban schools). The cost-per-additionally-vaccinated child (i.e., incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) was estimated by dividing the incremental SLIV intervention cost by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the additional number of vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools). We performed deterministic analyses, one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic analyses. Results The overall effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 5.7 and 5.5 percentage points higher, respectively, in intervention elementary (52.8%) and secondary schools (48.2%) than grade-matched control schools. SLIV programs vaccinated a small proportion of children in intervention elementary (5.2%) and secondary schools (2.5%). In elementary and secondary schools, the ICER excluding vaccine purchase was $85.71 and $86.51 per-additionally-vaccinated-child, respectively. When additionally accounting for observed spillover impact on practice-based vaccination, the ICER decreased to $80.53 in elementary schools -- decreasing substantially in secondary schools. (to $53.40). These estimates were higher than the published practice-based vaccination cost (median = $25.50, mean = $45.48). Also, these estimates were higher than our 2009–2011 urban SLIV program mean costs ($65) due to additional costs for use of a new web-based consent system ($12.97 per-additionally-vaccinated-child) and higher project coordination costs in 2015–2016. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that ICER estimates were most sensitive to the SLIV effectiveness. Conclusions SLIV raises vaccination rates and may increase practice-based vaccination in primary care practices. While these SLIV programs are effective, to be as cost-effective as practice-based vaccination our SLIV programs would need to vaccinate more students and/or lower the costs for consent systems and project coordination. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02227186 (August 25, 2014), updated NCT03137667 (May 2, 2017).

BackgroundAdult influenza vaccination rates are low. Tailored patient reminders might raise rates.ObjectiveEvaluate impact of a health system’s patient portal reminders: (1) tailored to patient characteristics and (2) incorporating behavioral science strategies, on influenza vaccination rates among adults.DesignPragmatic 6-arm randomized trial across a health system during the 2019–2020 influenza vaccination season. The setting was one large health system—53 adult primary care practices.ParticipantsAll adult patients who used the patient portal within 12 months, stratified by the following: young adults (18–64 years, without diabetes), older adults (≥65 years, without diabetes), and those with diabetes (≥18 years).InterventionsPatients were randomized within strata to either (1) pre-commitment reminder alone (1 message, mid-October), (2) pre-commitment + loss frame messages, (3) pre-commitment + gain frame messages, (4) loss frame messages alone, (5) gain frame messages alone, or (6) standard of care control. Patients in the pre-commitment group were sent a message in mid-October, asking if they planned on getting an influenza vaccination. Patients in loss or gain frame groups were sent up to 3 portal reminders (late October, November, and December, if no documented influenza vaccination in the EHR) about importance and safety of influenza vaccine.Main MeasuresReceipt of 1 influenza vaccine from 10/01/2019 to 03/31/2020.Key Results196,486 patients (145,166 young adults, 29,795 older adults, 21,525 adults with diabetes) were randomized. Influenza vaccination rates were as follows: for young adults 36.8%, for older adults 55.6%, and for diabetics 60.6%. On unadjusted and adjusted (for age, gender, insurance, race, ethnicity, and prior influenza vaccine history) analyses, influenza vaccination rates were not statistically different for any study group versus control.ConclusionsPatient reminders sent by a health system’s patient portal that were tailored to patient demographics (young adults, older adults, diabetes) and that incorporated two behavioral economic messaging strategies (pre-commitment and loss/gain framing) were not effective in raising influenza vaccination rates.Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04110314).

ObjectivesDespite the seriousness of influenza and pertussis, availability of safe and effective vaccines against them, and long-standing maternal vaccination recommendations, US maternal influenza and Tdap vaccination rates have been low. To increase vaccination rates in obstetric offices, it is important to understand clinician perspectives and office processes. We conducted in-depth interviews with nurses and providers on these topics.MethodsInterviewees worked in obstetric offices in one-of-four participating health systems in NY and CA. We audio-recorded and transcribed 20–30-min interviews. We used predetermined categories to code interviews with Dedoose, then iteratively refined codes and identified themes.ResultsWe conducted 20 interviews between 4/2020 and 9/2020: 13 providers (physician or nurse midwife) (5 NY, 8 CA); 7 office nurses (6 NY, 1 CA). In almost all offices, patient refusal of influenza vaccine was considered the major vaccination barrier; Tdap was often deferred by patients until post-delivery. Nurse-only visits for either vaccine were rare. Vaccination outside the office was uncommon; few offices systematically documented vaccines given elsewhere in a retrievable manner. Participants emphasized patient education as key to prenatal care, but the number of topics left little time for immunizations. Few interviewees could identify an office “immunization champion,” knew their office vaccination rates, or had participated in vaccination quality improvement. Several interviewees indicated that they or another provider were good at persuading hesitant patients, but their method had not been shared with other clinicians.Conclusions for PracticeMultiple practical barriers and maternal vaccine hesitancy limit maternal vaccination. Quality improvement strategies are needed.

Influenza vaccination rates among children are low and novel strategies are needed to raise coverage. We measured the impact of school-located influenza vaccination (SLIV) on coverage, examined whether SLIV substitutes for practice-based influenza vaccination (“substitution”), and estimated whether a second year of experience with SLIV increases its impact. We implemented a stepped wedge study design with schools as clusters. In Year 1, we randomly allocated schools to SLIV or control. In Year 2, all schools performed SLIV. We used emails (suburban schools) or backpack fliers (both urban and suburban schools) to notify parents, and offered web-based (suburban) or paper-based vaccination (urban) consent forms. Local health department nurses administered SLIV vaccinations and billed insurers. We analyzed state immunization registry data to measure influenza vaccination rates. 42 schools (38,078 children) participated over 2 years. Overall vaccination rates were 5 and 7 percentage points higher among SLIV- school children versus control-school children in suburban (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25–1.49 in Years 1–2 SLIV vs. Year 1 control schools) and urban schools (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10–1.36), respectively, adjusting for prior year’s vaccination and other covariates. While no substitution occurred among children attending suburban schools, some substitution occurred among children attending urban schools, although overall vaccination rates were still higher in urban schools due to SLIV. Compared to an initial year of SLIV, more children were vaccinated in a second year of SLIV at urban (8.3% vs. 6.8%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04–1.47) but not suburban schools (3.5% vs. 2.7%, aOR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98–1.57). In this stepped wedge trial, SLIV increased overall influenza vaccination rates in suburban and urban schools. Some substitution for primary care vaccination occurred in urban settings. A second year of SLIV expanded its reach slightly in urban schools.

► We assessed parent and adolescent perspectives on adolescent vaccine delivery. ► Parents who perceived vaccines as very safe were more accepting of adolescent vaccines. ► Most parents were willing to have adolescents vaccinated during a minor illness. ► Participants most preferred medical settings for vaccine receipt. We surveyed parents of adolescents (n=430) and their adolescents ages 15–17 years (n=208) in 9 primary-care settings in Monroe County, NY to assess perceptions about adolescent vaccine delivery. Parents and adolescents most wanted to discuss vaccine side effects and the diseases prevented with the adolescents’ provider. Those who perceived vaccines as very safe were more accepting of adolescent vaccines. Most participants agreed with vaccinating the teen during a mild illness and with providing multiple vaccines concomitantly. Participants most preferred medical, as opposed to other settings, for receipt of adolescent vaccines. For parents and adolescents who are wary of vaccination, strategies are needed to enhance communication about risks and benefits of vaccinations.

Vaccine hesitancy contributes to outbreaks of preventable disease worldwide. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), developed by the international WHO SAGE Working Group, has been validated previously for measuring hesitancy towards childhood vaccines; some psychometric properties were suboptimal. We collected data using large, nationally-representative samples of parents in the U.S. We adapted the VHS items, and additional hesitancy items, to assess hesitancy towards influenza and HPV vaccines in addition to routine childhood vaccines. We then used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to identify latent constructs and create modified scales for childhood (VHS-child), influenza (VHS-flu) and HPV (VHS-HPV) vaccines with improved psychometric properties. Finally, we compared hesitancy scores on the VHS-child, VHS-flu, and VHS-HPV, to self-reported receipt of each vaccine category, and compared subscale scores to assess whether drivers of hesitancy differed by vaccine category. 2052 parents of children <18 years old completed the VHS-child and VHS-flu while 2020 parents of adolescents completed the VHS-HPV. A two-factor structure of ‘risks’ and a ‘lack of confidence’ was found for each vaccine category. Slight modifications to the VHS improved psychometric properties. Hesitancy was strongly associated with vaccine receipt: e.g., 76% of parents not hesitant towards influenza vaccine had vaccinated their child the past season, versus 9% of hesitant parents (p < 0.0001). Subscale scores also differed significantly between vaccines: lack of confidence was greater towards influenza (Median (IQR): 2.0 (1.2, 3.3)) and HPV (2.0 (1.3, 3.0)) vaccines than childhood (1.2 (1.0, 1.8), p < 0.0001 for both) vaccines; perceived risks of HPV vaccines (2.7 (1.7, 3.7)) were greater than for childhood vaccines (2.0 (1.3, 3.0), p < 0.0001). Our modified VHS scales perform well psychometrically and allow for consistent measurement of the extent and reasons for hesitancy between vaccine categories. We suggest that future work use these scales to examine hesitancy towards other vaccines and to monitor hesitancy over time.

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) is an evidence-based strategy for increasing vaccination rates that uses a population-level database such as a state immunization information system (IIS) to send notifications across large geographic areas. IISs are usually based in state public health departments, which could initiate C-R/R. While C-R/R is a promising strategy, the factors influencing its initiation and sustainment are not clear. Utilizing qualitative content analysis methodology and interviews with key stakeholders involved in or knowledgeable about C-R/R, we examined the characteristics of these initiatives and factors influencing their success. We identified and spoke with managers and senior leaders across IISs, health plans, health systems, pharmaceutical companies, and advocacy organizations and focused especially on C-R/R activities within IISs. Several considerations were determined important to C-R/R success: decision-making, stakeholder buy-in, partnerships, funding, data and technology, evaluation, and message content. Salient barriers were costs and lack of funding, poor contact data quality (i.e. telephone number, home address), and messaging that is either overly broad or too specific. Pertinent facilitators of C-R/R included notifying health providers in advance of an initiative, conducting a rigorous post-reminder/recall evaluation, and engaging a range of partners. Partnerships were important to stakeholders for multiple reasons including technical assistance, resource sharing, and sharing of best practices. Overall, our results illustrate the many opportunities to advance C-R/R through further collaboration within and across public health departments and potentially via public-private partnerships.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of hospitalization among infants in the United States. In August 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, for infants aged <8 months to protect against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection during their first RSV season and for children aged 8-19 months at increased risk for severe RSV disease. In phase 3 clinical trials, nirsevimab efficacy against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection with hospitalization was 81% (95% CI = 62%-90%) through 150 days after receipt; post-introduction effectiveness has not been assessed in the United States. In this analysis, the New Vaccine Surveillance Network evaluated nirsevimab effectiveness against RSV-associated hospitalization among infants in their first RSV season during October 1, 2023-February 29, 2024. Among 699 infants hospitalized with acute respiratory illness, 59 (8%) received nirsevimab ≥7 days before symptom onset. Nirsevimab effectiveness was 90% (95% CI = 75%-96%) against RSV-associated hospitalization with a median time from receipt to symptom onset of 45 days (IQR = 19-76 days). The number of infants who received nirsevimab was too low to stratify by duration from receipt; however, nirsevimab effectiveness is expected to decrease with increasing time after receipt because of antibody decay. Although nirsevimab uptake and the interval from receipt of nirsevimab were limited in this analysis, this early estimate supports the current nirsevimab recommendation for the prevention of severe RSV disease in infants. Infants should be protected by maternal RSV vaccination or infant receipt of nirsevimab.

Little is known about missed opportunities (MOs) for HPV vaccination during primary care visits at which influenza vaccination is delivered. We extracted electronic health records for HPV vaccine-eligible 11-to-17-year-olds. We assessed the proportion of visits during which an influenza vaccine was given and an HPV vaccine was due, but not given (i.e., MOs). Of 56,135 eligible visits, 57.5% represented MOs for HPV vaccination. MOs were more common at visits where an initial versus subsequent HPV vaccine dose was due (68.6% vs. 31.3%) and for acute/chronic and nurse-only visits compared to preventive visits (74.0% and 80.2% vs. 36.7%). In a multivariable model, MOs were more likely for the initial HPV dose and for non-preventive visits, but did not vary by patient sex/age. HPV vaccine MOs were common during visits where influenza vaccine was administered. Increasing simultaneous administration of HPV and influenza vaccines could increase HPV vaccine coverage.