Brian E Dixon1,2,3,4, Gregory D Zimet5, Shan Xiao2, Wanzhu Tu2, Brianna Lindsay6, Abby Church3, Stephen M Downs3,5. 1. Departments of Epidemiology and bedixon@regenstrief.org. 2. Biostatistics, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Regenstrief Institute Center for Biomedical Informatics, Indianapolis, Indiana. 4. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Center for Health Information and Communication, Veterans Health Administration, Indianapolis, Indiana; and. 5. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, and. 6. Merck and Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Abstract
: media-1vid110.1542/5849572217001PEDS-VA_2018-1457Video Abstract BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can lead to serious health issues and remains the most common sexually transmitted infection. Despite availability of effective vaccines, HPV vaccination rates are suboptimal. METHODS: In a cluster randomized trial, an intervention used to target parents of adolescents (11-17 years) eligible for a dose ofHPV vaccine, was tested in pediatric clinics part of an urban health system. Parents watched a digital video outlining the risks and benefits of vaccine using a tablet in the examination room. The primary outcome was change in HPV vaccine status 2 weeks after the clinic visit. An intention-to-treat analysis for the primary outcome used generalized estimating equations to accommodate the potential cluster effect of clinics. RESULTS: A total of 1596 eligible adolescents were observed during the 7-month trial. One-third of adolescents visited an intervention clinic. Adolescents who attended an intervention clinic were more likely to be younger (11-12 years) than those who attended a control clinic (72.4% vs 49.8%; P < .001). No differences in race or sex were observed. The proportion of adolescents with an observed change in vaccine status was higher for those attending an intervention clinic (64.8%) versus control clinic (50.1%; odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.25; P < .001). Adolescents whose parents watched the video had a 3-times greater odds of receiving a dose of the HPV vaccine (78.0%; odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-6.42; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions delivered within a clinical setting hold promise to improve vaccination behaviors.
RCT Entities:
: media-1vid110.1542/5849572217001PEDS-VA_2018-1457Video Abstract BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can lead to serious health issues and remains the most common sexually transmitted infection. Despite availability of effective vaccines, HPV vaccination rates are suboptimal. METHODS: In a cluster randomized trial, an intervention used to target parents of adolescents (11-17 years) eligible for a dose of HPV vaccine, was tested in pediatric clinics part of an urban health system. Parents watched a digital video outlining the risks and benefits of vaccine using a tablet in the examination room. The primary outcome was change in HPV vaccine status 2 weeks after the clinic visit. An intention-to-treat analysis for the primary outcome used generalized estimating equations to accommodate the potential cluster effect of clinics. RESULTS: A total of 1596 eligible adolescents were observed during the 7-month trial. One-third of adolescents visited an intervention clinic. Adolescents who attended an intervention clinic were more likely to be younger (11-12 years) than those who attended a control clinic (72.4% vs 49.8%; P < .001). No differences in race or sex were observed. The proportion of adolescents with an observed change in vaccine status was higher for those attending an intervention clinic (64.8%) versus control clinic (50.1%; odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-2.25; P < .001). Adolescents whose parents watched the video had a 3-times greater odds of receiving a dose of the HPV vaccine (78.0%; odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-6.42; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions delivered within a clinical setting hold promise to improve vaccination behaviors.
Authors: Manika Suryadevara; Cynthia A Bonville; Donald A Cibula; Joseph B Domachowske Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Terresa J Eun; Amresh Hanchate; Anny T Fenton; Jack A Clark; Marisa N Aurora; Mari-Lynn Drainoni; Rebecca B Perkins Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Peter G Szilagyi; Christina S Albertin; Dennis Gurfinkel; Alison W Saville; Sitaram Vangala; John D Rice; Laura Helmkamp; Gregory D Zimet; Rebecca Valderrama; Abigail Breck; Cynthia M Rand; Sharon G Humiston; Allison Kempe Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-08-02 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Zheng Quan Toh; Fiona M Russell; Suzanne M Garland; Edward K Mulholland; George Patton; Paul V Licciardi Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-03-02
Authors: D Santa Maria; C Markham; S M Misra; D C Coleman; M Lyons; C Desormeaux; S Cron; V Guilamo-Ramos Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.295