Explore the vast range of titles available.

Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys.

Background New mothers experience BF challenges but have limited evidence-based technology-enabled support. Objectives 1) Determine if using the Mother’s Milk Messaging™ app improved aspects of breastfeeding and breastfeeding rates and 2) Describe engagement as well as themes from the qualitative feedback on the app. Method Randomized Controlled Trial National sample of primiparous, singleton mothers recruited online and then randomized using stratification by language into three arms: 1) BF text messages plus app; 2) BF text messages, app and physician-moderated private Facebook (FB) group; 3) Attention control group who received injury prevention texts. Exclusive breastfeeding rates as primary outcome and knowledge/attitude, confidence, and social support as secondary outcomes. We determined engagement through analysis of app usage metrics. We conducted and content-coded interviews with participants to learn more about app usage and BF experience. Due to the nature of the intervention participants could not be blinded. Results There were a total of 346 participants in the trial, with 227 in the Intervention ( n  = 154 group 1 and n  = 156 group 2) and 119 in the control group. Because of minimal Facebook activity, the two intervention groups 1 and 2 were combined. There were no differences in breastfeeding exclusivity and duration. (NS). Women in the intervention arm reported significantly higher confidence with breastfeeding and perceived social support to the control group ( p  < .05). Greater than 80% registered the app and those that engaged with the app had higher scores with time. Mothers appreciated receiving text messages and videos with reliable information. No harm was reported in this study. Conclusion MMM increased confidence with breastfeeding and with gathering social supports. Exclusively BF was high in all participants. Mothers perceived it as useful and dependable especially the texting.

Norovirus is a leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) across the age spectrum; candidate vaccines are in clinical trials. While norovirus diagnostic testing is increasingly available, stool testing may not be performed routinely, which can hamper surveillance and burden of disease estimates. Additionally, lack of knowledge of the burden of disease may inhibit provider vaccine recommendations, which could affect coverage rates and ultimately the impact of the vaccine. Our objectives were to understand physicians' stool testing practices in outpatients with AGE, and physician knowledge of norovirus, in order to improve surveillance and prepare for vaccine introduction. Internet and mail survey on AGE, norovirus, and future norovirus vaccines conducted January to March 2018 among national networks of primary care pediatricians, family practice and general internal medicine physicians. The response rate was 59% (820/1383). During peak AGE season, physicians estimated they ordered stool tests for a median of 15% (interquartile range: 5-33%) of their outpatients with AGE. Stool tests were reported as more often available for ova and parasites, Clostridioides difficile, and bacterial culture (>95% for all specialties) than for norovirus (6-33% across specialties); even when available, norovirus-specific tests were infrequently ordered. Most providers were unaware that norovirus is a leading cause of AGE across all age groups (Pediatricians 80%, Family Practice 86%, General Internal Medicine 89%) or that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are ineffective against norovirus (Pediatricians 51%, Family Practice 66%, General Internal Medicine 62%). Concerns cited as major barriers to implementing a future norovirus vaccine included if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (General Internal Medicine 64%, Pediatricians 67%, Family Practice 74%) and lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination (Pediatricians 43%, General Internal Medicine 46%, Family Practice 50%). Factors that providers believed were 'not at all a barrier' or 'minor barrier' to new vaccine introduction included the belief that \"my patients won't need this vaccine\" (General Internal Medicine 78%, Family Practice 86%, Pediatricians 90%) and \"my patients already get too many vaccines\" (Family Practice 89%, General Internal Medicine 92%, Pediatricians 95%). Primary care physicians had few concerns regarding future norovirus vaccine introduction, but have knowledge gaps on norovirus prevalence and hand hygiene for prevention. Also, physicians infrequently order stool tests for outpatients with AGE, which limits surveillance estimates that rely on physician-ordered stool diagnostics. Closing physician knowledge gaps on norovirus burden and transmission can help support norovirus vaccine introduction.

Background: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no‐shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. Methods: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. Results: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient‐reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive‐emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. Conclusions: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is sub‐optimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms.

ObjectivesThis project seeks to improve providers’ practices and patient outcomes from prehospital (ie, ambulance-based) trauma care in a middle-income country using a novel implementation strategy to introduce a bundled clinical intervention.DesignWe conduct a two-arm, controlled, mixed-methods, hybrid type II study.SettingThis study was conducted in the Western Cape Government Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system of South Africa.InterventionsWe pragmatically implemented a simplified prehospital bundle of trauma care (with five core elements) using a novel workplace-based, peer-to-peer, rapid training format. We assigned the intervention and control sites.Outcome measuresWe assessed implementation effectiveness among EMS providers and stakeholders, using the RE-AIM framework. Clinical effectiveness was assessed at the patient level, using changes in Shock Index x Age (SIxAge). Indices and cut-offs were established a priori. We performed a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) analysis with a multivariable mixed effects model.Results198 of 240 (82.5%) EMS providers participated, 93 (47%) intervention and 105 (53%) control, with similar baseline characteristics. The overall implementation effectiveness was excellent (80.6%): reach was good (65%), effectiveness was excellent (87%), implementation fidelity was good (72%) and adoption was excellent (87%). Participants and stakeholders generally reported very high satisfaction with the implementation strategy citing that it was a strong operational fit and effective educational model for their organisation. A total of 770 patients were included: 329 (42.7%) interventions and 441 (57.3%) controls, with no baseline differences. Intervention arm patients had more improved SIxAge compared with control at 4 months, which was not statistically significant (−1.4 D-I-D; p=0.35). There was no significant difference in change of SIxAge over time between the groups for any of the other time intervals (p=0.99).ConclusionsIn this quasi-experimental trial of bundled care using the novel workplace rapid training approach, we found overall excellent implementation effectiveness but no overall statistically significant clinical effectiveness.

Vaccine-preventable infections result in significant morbidity, mortality, and costs in pediatric transplant recipients. Despite intensive medical care in the pretransplant period, less than 20% of children are up to date for age-appropriate vaccines at the time of transplant. Mobile health apps have the potential to improve pretransplant vaccine rates. This paper aimed to perform phase 2 beta testing of the smartphone app, Immunize PediatricTransplant, to determine (1) if it was effective in achieving up-to-date vaccine status by the time of transplant in a cohort of children awaiting transplants and (2) if the app was feasible and acceptable to parent and transplant provider users. We recruited 25 dyads of parents and providers of a child awaiting a liver, kidney, or heart transplant at Children's Hospital Colorado, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, and the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Parents and providers filled out an entry questionnaire before app use to gather baseline information. A research team member entered the child's vaccine records into the app. The parent and provider downloaded and used the app until the transplant to view vaccine records, read vaccine education, communicate with team members, and receive overdue vaccine reminders. After the transplant (or on April 1, 2024, the conclusion of the study), the parent and provider filled out an exit questionnaire to explore feasibility and acceptability of the app. The child's vaccine records were reviewed to determine if the child was up to date on vaccines at the time of transplant. Twenty-five parent and provider dyads were enrolled; 56% (14/25) had a child awaiting a liver transplant, 28% (7/25) had a child awaiting a kidney transplant, and 16% (4/25) had a child awaiting a heart transplant. At the conclusion of the study, 96% (24/25) of the children were up to date on vaccines. Of the 36 parents and providers who filled out an exit questionnaire, 97% (n=35) agreed or strongly agreed that they felt knowledgeable about pretransplant vaccine use and 86% (n=31) agreed or strongly agreed that communication around vaccines was good after using the app. Further, 91% (20/22) of parents and 79% (11/14) of providers recommended the app to future parents and providers of transplant candidates. Parents and providers suggested that in the future the app should connect directly to the electronic medical record or state vaccine registries to obtain vaccine data. The overwhelming majority of children whose parents and providers used the Immunize PediatricTransplant app were up to date on vaccines at the time of transplant. The majority of app users felt the app was feasible and acceptable. In future iterations of the app and subsequent clinical trials, we will explore whether application programming interfaces might be used to extract vaccine data from the electronic medical record. If implemented broadly, this app has the potential to improve pretransplant vaccine rates, resulting in fewer posttransplant infections and improved posttransplant outcomes.

Herpes zoster vaccination rates remain low despite longstanding national recommendations to vaccinate immunocompetent adults aged ≥ 50 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) updated its recommendations for recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in October 2021 to include immunocompromised adults aged ≥19 years. To assess practices, attitudes, and knowledge about RZV, barriers to recommending RZV, and likelihood of recommending RZV to patients with various immunocompromising conditions. Mail and internet-based survey conducted from May through July 2020. General internists and family physicians throughout the USA. Survey responses. The response rate was 66% (632/955). Many physicians were already recommending RZV to immunocompromised populations, including adults ≥50 years with HIV (67% of respondents) and on recombinant human immune modulator therapy (56%). Forty-seven percent of respondents both stocked/administered RZV and referred patients elsewhere, frequently a pharmacy, for vaccination; 42% did not stock RZV and only referred patients. The majority agreed pharmacies do not inform them when RZV has been given (64%). Physicians were generally knowledgeable about RZV; however, 25% incorrectly thought experiencing side effects from the first dose of RZV that interfere with normal activities was a reason to not receive the second dose. The top reported barrier to recommending RZV was experience with patients declining RZV due to cost concerns (67%). Most physicians reported they would be likely to recommend RZV to immunocompromised patients. Most primary care physicians welcome updated ACIP RZV recommendations for immunocompromised adults. Knowledge gaps, communication issues, and financial barriers need to be addressed to optimize vaccination delivery.

BackgroundIn 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology “shared clinical decision-making” (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines.ObjectiveTo assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM.DesignSurvey conducted in October 2019–January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference.ParticipantsNetworks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships.Main MeasuresResponses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of “not knowing how to implement SDM” conducted.Key ResultsResponse rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as “recommended” and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15–1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02–1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendationsConclusionsTo be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians.

Deaths attributable to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among adults are estimated to exceed 11,000 annually, and annual adult hospitalizations for influenza and RSV may be comparable. RSV vaccines for older adults are in development. We assessed the following among primary care physicians (PCPs) who treat adults: (1) perception of RSV disease burden; (2) current RSV testing practices; and (3) anticipated barriers to adoption of an RSV vaccine. We administered an Internet and mail survey from February to March 2017 to national networks of 930 PCPs. The response rate was 67% (620/930). Forty-nine percent of respondents (n = 303) were excluded from analysis as they reported never or rarely caring for an adult patient with possible RSV in the past year. Among respondents who reported taking care of RSV patients (n = 317), 73% and 57% responded that in patients ≥ 50 years, influenza is generally more severe than RSV and that they rarely consider RSV as a potential pathogen, respectively. Most (61%) agreed that they do not test for RSV because there is no treatment. The most commonly reported anticipated barriers to a RSV vaccine were potential out-of-pocket expenses for patients if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (93%) and lack of reimbursement for vaccination (74%). Physicians reported little experience with RSV disease in adults. They are generally not testing for it and the majority believe that influenza disease is more severe. Physicians will require more information about RSV disease burden in adults and the potential need for a vaccine in their adult patients.

Background. This study describes physicians' perception of burden associated with herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), intentions for recommending the HZ vaccine, and perceived barriers to vaccination. Methods. A national survey of 438 general internal medicine (GIM) and 433 family medicine (FM) physicians was conducted during November–December 2005. Results. The survey response rate was 69%. Approximately 35% of GIM and FM physicians strongly agreed that HZ and PHN caused a significant burden of disease. For patients 60–79 years of age, ≥80% of GIM and FM physicians were somewhat or very likely to recommend HZ vaccine. In multivariate analyses, physicians who strongly agreed that HZ and PHN cause significant burden were more likely to recommend the vaccine to patients 60–79 years of age (odds ratio [OR], 2.75 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.85–4.09]), whereas those who felt there was insufficient information about duration of protection (OR, 0.40 [CI, 0.24–0.67]), that the need to store HZ vaccine in a freezer was a definite barrier (OR, 0.31 [CI, 0.13–0.75]), or that their patients would not pay for the vaccine if it was not covered by insurance (OR, 0.57 [CI, 0.38–0.86]) were less likely to recommend it. Conclusions. Primary care physicians perceived a high level of burden from HZ and PHN and generally favored the HZ vaccine.