RESUMEN

Vaccine refusal is increasing. Objectives were to assess frequency of declining or dismissing patients who refuse vaccines, which vaccine(s) prompt pediatricians to decline/dismiss patients, and demographics of pediatricians who decline/dismiss patients. Active members of the Oklahoma American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) were surveyed. Chi-square tests with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals compared proportions of providers across various metrics. In all, 47% (48/103) versus 35% (34/98) reported declining versus dismissing patients for refusing vaccines, respectively. Pediatricians were unlikely to decline/dismiss patients if they refused influenza, human papilloma virus (HPV), or MenB vaccines. Pediatricians with more years in practice were less likely to decline 15% (9/62) versus 44% (16/36), P = 0.002 and dismiss 8% (5/62) versus 33% (12/36), P = 0.002 patients. Rural pediatricians were less likely than urban to decline 12% (2/17) versus 29% (26/89), P = NS and dismiss patients 0% (0/17) versus 21% (19/89), P = 0.04. Dismissing/declining patients for vaccine refusal is more common among Oklahoma pediatricians than nationally reported. Patterns differ by practice setting, years in practice, and specific vaccine refused.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We describe LP perceptions of pediatric and internal medicine/pediatrics residents and faculty and determine the relationship between LP training and perceptions of LP. Reach Out and Read (ROR) is a widely implemented evidence-based literacy promotion (LP) intervention. Recent data have shown that there is variability in both LP training for pediatric residents and implementation of ROR. However, little is known about the perceptions regarding LP and the relationship with training. METHODS: Faculty and residents at participating sites completed an anonymous online survey on LP perceptions and training. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 473 faculty and 1216 residents at 42 pediatric training programs participated. Faculty versus resident status was a significant predictor of almost all perception questions. Most faculty (65.3%) and residents (44.3%) completely agreed that it is the job of pediatricians to assess and encourage reading (P < .0001). Most faculty (69.6%) and residents (51.5%) completely agreed that LP is as important as advice about car seats, bike helmets, and "back-to-sleep" (P < .0001). More faculty (65.8%) than residents (46.6%) completely agreed with the statement "discussing sharing books with children at health supervision visits can be an effective early intervention strategy" (P < .0001). More faculty (34%) compared to residents (18.2%) completely agreed they felt confident modeling reading for parents during the visit (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty status predicted most favorable LP perceptions, while continuity clinic training and learning in-clinic from others predicted some favorable LP perceptions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics regards literacy promotion as essential. Medical professionals are in a key position to promote children's early literacy, however this requires knowledge of existing literacy programmes. This study describes medical student training, awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards early literacy and the 'Reach Out and Read' (ROR) initiative. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to all medical students at a medical school in the Midwest with two campuses. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received data from 275 medical students. Almost half (46.5%) had completed their paediatric clerkship, 22.9% had observed ROR, and only 2.9% had received any training. Most (67%), wanted to learn more about early literacy, and 59% expressed a desire for more ROR training. Most respondents expressed preference for learning from residents and faculty in clinic followed by online training. 47% agreed that it was a role of medical students to assess and encourage reading. DISCUSSION: Medical students understand the importance of early literacy in primary care and emphasising this during clinical encounters. Most are eager to learn more about early literacy promotion and ROR. This interest decreases during third and fourth year so targeting the first 2 years of medical school is an important strategy. Providing formal literacy promotion training and education for medical students should be considered during this critical time in their education.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study explored the association between provider recommendation and adolescent vaccine coverage. We analyzed data from the 2008 to 2018 National Immunization Survey-Teen including coverage with one dose of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY), Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), and one and three doses of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. We compared vaccine coverage between those who recalled a provider recommendation and those who did not. Among those who received a provider recommendation for MenACWY, coverage trended from 67.8% (2008) to 88.1% (2013), contrasted to those who did not, trending from 30.9% to 73.1%. Among those with a provider recommendation for Tdap, coverage trended from 47.6% to 89.7%, contrasted to those who did not, trending from 35.6% to 82.2%. Among females with a provider recommendation for HPV vaccine, receipt of initial dose of HPV vaccine trended from 57.5% (2008) to 74.3% (2018), contrasted to those who did not, trending from 18.1% to 49.8%, and among males, trended from 17.2% (2010) to 75.1% (2018) for those with a provider recommendation, compared to 0.5% to 44.7% for those without. In 2013, coverage difference by provider recommendation was 26.0% among females for one dose of HPV vaccine and 21.9% for three doses, and among males was 44.8% and 20.8%, respectively, while it was lower at 15% for MenACWY and 7.6% for Tdap. For each vaccine, coverage was higher with a provider recommendation; the largest difference was noted for HPV vaccine. This finding verifies for providers the importance of their recommendation, especially for the HPV vaccine.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Despite endorsement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, there are no national data on literacy promotion (LP) training and behaviors. OBJECTIVE: To describe LP training experiences and behaviors of pediatric and internal medicine/pediatrics residents and faculty nationally, and the association between LP training and behaviors. METHODS: The Academic Pediatric Association's Continuity Research Network and Reach Out and Read National Center sent an online survey to faculty and residents at participating Continuity Research Network clinics. Respondents were asked about LP training experiences and behaviors. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: 473 faculty and 1216 residents at 42 institutions participated. More faculty than residents reported completing online Reach Out and Read training (63% vs 45%, P < .0001). More residents reported learning in clinic from others (92% vs 89%, P = .04). Training experiences did not differ otherwise. More faculty reported providing anticipatory guidance (87% vs 77%, P < .0001); modeling shared reading (69% vs 45%, P < .0001); and using books for developmental assessment (80% vs 62%, P < .0001). Both groups (97%) reported distributing books. The training modality most often endorsed as "very/extremely influential" was learning in clinic from others. Some LP behaviors were associated more strongly with online training while others were associated more strongly with in-person training. CONCLUSIONS: Online training and in-person training are both associated with high quality delivery of LP. Faculty members are more likely to have completed online training and to report engaging in the full range of recommended LP behaviors. These data have implications for LP training.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTENT: Clinician prescribing of off-label medications is common due to a lack of pediatric-specific data regarding the dosing, efficacy and safety of medications regularly prescribed to children. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review summarizes the published incidence of off-label medication use in children from the past 10 years. We also performed a retrospective chart review to determine the incidence of off-label prescriptions for children seen in the OU Physicians clinics. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a literature search of PubMed and OVID Medline from 2007 to 2017. Search terms included off-label use of medications and all child. For the local review, the outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) was queried. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible for inclusion if the study included children < 18 years of age, defined off-label use in the paper, and included the incidence of off-label drug use. DATA EXTRACTION: Each review author extracted the study data from their assigned studies. For the retrospective chart review, the EMR was queried for patients <21 years of age who had a clinic visit and received a new prescription during 2017. RESULTS: We identified 31 studies, with off-label prescription rates from 3.2 % to 95%. The local retrospective chart review included 1,323 prescriptions; 504 were off-label (38.1%) and 819 were approved. The frequency of off-label prescriptions does not differ significantly between the meta-analysis from the systematic review and the local retrospective chart review (30.9% vs 38.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of off-label medications in children remains a common practice for pediatric providers.