Melanie L Kornides1, Holly B Fontenot2, Annie-Laurie McRee3, Catherine A Panozzo4, Melissa B Gilkey5. 1. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School & Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive, Suite 401 East, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: Melanie.Kornides@mail.harvard.edu. 2. WF Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA. Electronic address: holly.fontenot@bc.edu. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, 1932K (Campus Delivery Code) 717 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA. Electronic address: almcree@umn.edu. 4. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School & Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive, Suite 401 East, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Electronic address: Catherine_Panozzo@harvardpilgrim.org. 5. Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Campus Box 7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: gilkey@email.unc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing awareness of the importance of a provider recommendation for HPV vaccine, the U.S. has yet to achieve the Healthy people 2020 goal of 80% series completion among adolescents. This failure indicates a need for further examination of the modifiable influences on parents' decision-making. Healthcare providers can influence parents' HPV vaccination decision-making, but little is known about parents' perspectives on the counseling they receive. We sought to assess U.S. parents' satisfaction with provider communication about HPV vaccine and associations with vaccination behaviors. METHODS: Parents of 11-to-17-year-old adolescents who discussed HPV vaccination with a healthcare provider at least once (n = 795) completed our online survey in Fall 2016. We assessed their satisfaction with the discussion using the HPV Vaccine Communication Satisfaction Scale (α = 0.94). We examined associations between satisfaction (categorized as low, moderate, or high), and three vaccination behaviors: refusal/delay, series initiation (≥1 dose), and continuation (≥2 doses among initiators) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Most parents reported high (36%) or moderate (38%) satisfaction with provider communication about HPV vaccination; fewer reported low (26%) satisfaction. Moderately satisfied parents (vs. low) had lower odds of refusal/delay (aOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.89), and higher odds of initiation (aOR = 1.71, 95% CI:1.15-2.55) and continuation (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.24-3.40). The associations were stronger for highly satisfied parents (refusal/delay aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29-0.70, initiation aOR = 3.59, 95% CI: 2.23-5.78, and continuation aOR = 4.08, 95% CI: 2.38-7.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that parent satisfaction with provider communication may play an important role in HPV vaccination decision-making. Yet, communication satisfaction has been largely unexamined in the HPV-vaccine literature to date. We introduce a brief, 7-item HPV Vaccine Communication Scale that can be used to assess parents' level of satisfaction with their provider's communication specific to HPV vaccine. We identify communication areas for providers to prioritize when discussing HPV vaccine with parents.
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing awareness of the importance of a provider recommendation for HPV vaccine, the U.S. has yet to achieve the Healthy people 2020 goal of 80% series completion among adolescents. This failure indicates a need for further examination of the modifiable influences on parents' decision-making. Healthcare providers can influence parents' HPV vaccination decision-making, but little is known about parents' perspectives on the counseling they receive. We sought to assess U.S. parents' satisfaction with provider communication about HPV vaccine and associations with vaccination behaviors. METHODS: Parents of 11-to-17-year-old adolescents who discussed HPV vaccination with a healthcare provider at least once (n = 795) completed our online survey in Fall 2016. We assessed their satisfaction with the discussion using the HPV Vaccine Communication Satisfaction Scale (α = 0.94). We examined associations between satisfaction (categorized as low, moderate, or high), and three vaccination behaviors: refusal/delay, series initiation (≥1 dose), and continuation (≥2 doses among initiators) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Most parents reported high (36%) or moderate (38%) satisfaction with provider communication about HPV vaccination; fewer reported low (26%) satisfaction. Moderately satisfied parents (vs. low) had lower odds of refusal/delay (aOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.89), and higher odds of initiation (aOR = 1.71, 95% CI:1.15-2.55) and continuation (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.24-3.40). The associations were stronger for highly satisfied parents (refusal/delay aOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.29-0.70, initiation aOR = 3.59, 95% CI: 2.23-5.78, and continuation aOR = 4.08, 95% CI: 2.38-7.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that parent satisfaction with provider communication may play an important role in HPV vaccination decision-making. Yet, communication satisfaction has been largely unexamined in the HPV-vaccine literature to date. We introduce a brief, 7-item HPV Vaccine Communication Scale that can be used to assess parents' level of satisfaction with their provider's communication specific to HPV vaccine. We identify communication areas for providers to prioritize when discussing HPV vaccine with parents.
Authors: R D Hays; J A Shaul; V S Williams; J S Lubalin; L D Harris-Kojetin; S F Sweeny; P D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Echo L Warner; Djin Lai; Sara Carbajal-Salisbury; Luis Garza; Julia Bodson; Kathi Mooney; Deanna Kepka Journal: J Community Health Date: 2015-06
Authors: Melissa B Gilkey; Brooke E Magnus; Paul L Reiter; Annie-Laurie McRee; Amanda F Dempsey; Noel T Brewer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Eric Adjei Boakye; Betelihem B Tobo; Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters; Kahee A Mohammed; Christian J Geneus; Mario Schootman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Mona Saraiya; Elizabeth R Unger; Trevor D Thompson; Charles F Lynch; Brenda Y Hernandez; Christopher W Lyu; Martin Steinau; Meg Watson; Edward J Wilkinson; Claudia Hopenhayn; Glenn Copeland; Wendy Cozen; Edward S Peters; Youjie Huang; Maria Sibug Saber; Sean Altekruse; Marc T Goodman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Amanda F Dempsey; Jennifer Pyrznawoski; Steven Lockhart; Juliana Barnard; Elizabeth J Campagna; Kathleen Garrett; Allison Fisher; L Miriam Dickinson; Sean T O'Leary Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Andreia B Alexander; Nathan W Stupiansky; Mary A Ott; Debby Herbenick; Michael Reece; Gregory D Zimet Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Melanie L Kornides; Sarah Badlis; Katharine J Head; Mary Putt; Joseph Cappella; Graciela Gonzalez-Hernadez Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2022-07-27