A F Dempsey1, J Pyrzanowski2, E J Campagna2, S Lockhart2, S T O'Leary2. 1. Adult and Child Consortium for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado Denver, United States. Electronic address: Amanda.dempsey@ucdenver.edu. 2. Adult and Child Consortium for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science (ACCORDS), University of Colorado Denver, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess secondary, parent-reported outcomes from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a provider communication intervention aimed at improving adolescent HPV vaccination. METHODS: A paper survey was provided to a random sample of 777 parents of adolescents from 8 control and 8 intervention clinics participating in the larger trial. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests assessed associations between study arm and providers' HPV vaccine communication strategies, parents' vaccination attitudes and parent's HPV vaccine acceptance. Exploratory analyses assessed the association between receipt of 'very strong' or presumptive HPV vaccine recommendation (regardless of study arm) and parent's perceptions about their providers' vaccine communication, and parents' attitudes and acceptance of the HPV vaccine. RESULTS: The response rate was 47%. There were no differences between study arms in parents' report of how their provider communicated about the HPV vaccine, parent vaccination attitudes, or uptake of the HPV vaccine. Receipt of a 'very strong' recommendation was associated with greater perceived urgency for getting vaccinated, greater trust in the information received from the provider, decreased vaccine hesitancy, and increased vaccine receipt. Receipt of a presumptive recommendation was associated with a lower likelihood of having concerns about the vaccine's safety, lower vaccine hesitancy, and an increased likelihood of vaccination. Neither recommendation strategy appeared to negatively impact parents' visit experience or trust in the information being provided. Similar results were found in sub-analyses of vaccine hesitant parents. CONCLUSIONS: Providing very strong, presumptive HPV vaccine recommendations is associated with improved parent vaccination attitudes and acceptance, and does not seem to have significant negative impacts, even among parents who are vaccine hesitant. Response bias in our sample could explain why there were no reported differences between study arms in parents' reports of how their adolescent's providers communicated about the HPV vaccine.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess secondary, parent-reported outcomes from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a provider communication intervention aimed at improving adolescent HPV vaccination. METHODS: A paper survey was provided to a random sample of 777 parents of adolescents from 8 control and 8 intervention clinics participating in the larger trial. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests assessed associations between study arm and providers' HPV vaccine communication strategies, parents' vaccination attitudes and parent's HPV vaccine acceptance. Exploratory analyses assessed the association between receipt of 'very strong' or presumptive HPV vaccine recommendation (regardless of study arm) and parent's perceptions about their providers' vaccine communication, and parents' attitudes and acceptance of the HPV vaccine. RESULTS: The response rate was 47%. There were no differences between study arms in parents' report of how their provider communicated about the HPV vaccine, parent vaccination attitudes, or uptake of the HPV vaccine. Receipt of a 'very strong' recommendation was associated with greater perceived urgency for getting vaccinated, greater trust in the information received from the provider, decreased vaccine hesitancy, and increased vaccine receipt. Receipt of a presumptive recommendation was associated with a lower likelihood of having concerns about the vaccine's safety, lower vaccine hesitancy, and an increased likelihood of vaccination. Neither recommendation strategy appeared to negatively impact parents' visit experience or trust in the information being provided. Similar results were found in sub-analyses of vaccine hesitant parents. CONCLUSIONS: Providing very strong, presumptive HPV vaccine recommendations is associated with improved parent vaccination attitudes and acceptance, and does not seem to have significant negative impacts, even among parents who are vaccine hesitant. Response bias in our sample could explain why there were no reported differences between study arms in parents' reports of how their adolescent's providers communicated about the HPV vaccine.
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: Stacey R Finkelstein; Wendy Attaya Boland; Beth Vallen; Paul M Connell; Gary D Sherman; Kristen A Feemster Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Parth D Shah; William A Calo; Melissa B Gilkey; Marjorie A Margolis; Susan Alton Dailey; Karen G Todd; Noel T Brewer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Monica L Kasting; Katharine J Head; Andrea L DeMaria; Monica K Neuman; Allissa L Russell; Sharon E Robertson; Caroline E Rouse; Gregory D Zimet Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 3.017
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: Anne M Teitelman; Emily F Gregory; Joshua Jayasinghe; Zara Wermers; Ja H Koo; Jennifer F Morone; Damien C Leri; Annet Davis; Kristen A Feemster Journal: JMIR Nurs Date: 2020-10-29