RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies note a high prevalence of pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific vaccine hesitancy in the United States. Our objective was to assess whether clinicians perceive a spillover effect of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy onto other vaccines, and the impact of this spillover on their general recommendation behavior. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with pediatricians in California and Colorado pediatric practices (January-March 2023). We transcribed, coded, and analyzed interviews using content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 pediatricians (10 in California, 11 in Colorado). Clinicians observed some spillover effect of vaccine-favorable changes among some parents and greater hesitancy among others regarding the risks and benefits of childhood vaccination in general. This spillover was informed by 2 divergent patterns of parental trust in health systems and individual clinicians caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors driving perceived changes included media coverage, greater knowledge about vaccination, and misinformation. Some clinicians felt that their approach to vaccine recommendations became more patient-centered, whereas others reported declining engagement in persuading hesitant parents about vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians described a hardening of parental views toward vaccines in both directions, which impacted their recommendation behavior. There is a need for vaccine hesitancy monitoring and better training and support for clinicians facing vaccine hesitant parents.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric COVID-19 vaccination rates remain low in rural areas. A strong clinician recommendation improves vaccine uptake, but the pediatric COVID-19 vaccine recommendation practices of rural primary care clinicians have not been reported. Our objectives were to describe, among rural Colorado pediatric clinicians: 1) recommendation practices for COVID-19 vaccine compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines, and 2) personal attitudes. METHODS: From July to October 2023, surveys were distributed to clinicians in rural Colorado identified as pediatric vaccine providers in counties designated as rural through the Colorado Immunization Information System using mail and email. RESULTS: Of 89 survey respondents, 37% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 months - 5 years old, compared to 79% for influenza (p=0.05) and 92% for school-entry required vaccines (p=0.04). For children 6 -11 and 12 - 17 years old, 43% and 44% of clinicians strongly recommended COVID-19 vaccines, respectively, compared to 71% and 70% for influenza (p <0.01), and 91% for school-entry required vaccines (p <0.01). 44% of clinicians agreed that COVID-19 vaccines are important for pediatric patients. The most common clinician-perceived challenges to discussing pediatric COVID-19 vaccines included a lack of parent interest in more information (76% "somewhat" or "strongly" agree), lack of ability to change parents' minds (71%), and concerns that the vaccines are too political (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Most rural Colorado clinicians do not strongly recommend pediatric COVID-19 vaccines compared to influenza and school-entry required vaccines. Efforts to improve pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake should aim to strengthen clinicians' recommendations of these vaccines.

RESUMEN

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts that provides advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, normally meets 3 times per year to develop US vaccine recommendations. The ACIP met June 26-28, 2024. This update summarizes the proceedings of this meeting, with an emphasis on topics that are most relevant to the pediatric population. Major updates for pediatric clinicians include COVID-19 and influenza vaccine recommendations for the 2024-2025 season, meningococcal vaccination considerations, information regarding preferred Haemophilus influenzae type B containing vaccines for American Indian and Alaskan Native infants, and updates regarding implementation and effectiveness of RSV immunization in pregnant people and infants.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Children with influenza-like-illness (ILI) often require clinician clearance or antibiotics to return to child care or school. Study objectives were to examine the association between antibiotic receipt during an Emergency Department (ED) visit for ILI and the outcomes of class absenteeism and illness duration. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 251 children aged 2 months to 12 years with uncomplicated ILI discharged from the ED from December 1, 2018 to November 30, 2019 was conducted. The primary exposure was receipt of antibiotics over the course of illness (assessed by chart review and family follow-up survey). RESULTS: Patients prescribed antibiotics (n = 65) experienced a median of 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1,5) days of class missed and 5 (IQR: 3,7) days of illness compared to 2 (IQR: 1,4) days of class missed and 4 (IQR: 3,7) days of illness for those not prescribed antibiotics (n = 186, p = 0.08 and p = 0.13, respectively). There was no statistically significant association with missed class days (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.14 [0.86-1.50], p = 0.37) or days of illness (IRR: 1.06 [0.88-1.27], p = 0.55) for patients prescribed antibiotics compared to patients not prescribed antibiotics for ILI. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use for ILI was not associated with reduced class absenteeism or illness duration. IMPACT STATEMENT: Child care centers and schools sometimes exclude children with influenza-like-illness (ILI) from class until cleared to return by a clinician and/or prescribed antibiotics. This study addresses these social drivers of overprescribing. Antibiotics were prescribed in 26% of children with ILI discharged from a large Emergency Department in the US. Antibiotic use was not significantly associated with class absenteeism or illness duration. This study can serve as a discussion point for clinicians when navigating parental or social pressures to prescribe antibiotics for uncomplicated acute respiratory tract infections, particularly when these pressures are influenced by concerns about returning to class.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The worldwide elimination of measles and rubella is feasible, but not without overcoming the substantial challenge of vaccine hesitancy. This challenge is complicated by the spread of misinformation and disinformation fueled by rapidly progressing technologies and evolving forms of online communication. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has only added further complexity to this challenge. However, considerable progress has been made in understanding the scope of the problem and the complex factors that influence vaccine hesitancy. Our understanding of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy has grown significantly, including evidence for effective communication and behavioral interventions. In this article, we review measles and rubella vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. We then provide an overview of evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy, including communication strategies and behavioral interventions. This article is relevant to healthcare professionals, health system leaders, public health professionals, policymakers, community leaders, and any individuals who have a role in addressing vaccine hesitancy in their communities. Finally, we review future directions and major areas of research need.

RESUMEN

Vaccine confidence is a belief that vaccines work, are safe, and are part of a trustworthy medical system. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of the public's confidence in vaccines and the vaccine enterprise, limiting the public health impact of vaccination. In this review, we examine the critical nature of vaccine confidence to pandemic preparedness and response.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of medical and public health experts that provides advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, normally meets 3 times per year to develop US vaccine recommendations. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met February 28 to 29, 2024, to discuss coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, diphtheria-tetanus vaccine, influenza vaccines, polio vaccines, respiratory syncytial virus vaccines, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and Vaxelis (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Inactivated Poliovirus, Haemophilus influenzae b Conjugate, and Hepatitis B Vaccine). This update summarizes the proceedings of these meetings, with an emphasis on topics that are most relevant to the pediatric population. Major updates for pediatric clinicians include information about changes on influenza vaccine composition, meningococcal vaccination considerations, updated guidance for children with a contraindication to pertussis-containing vaccines, and recommendations of the world's first chikungunya vaccine for certain populations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Improving clinician-patient communication can increase uptake of recommended vaccinations during pregnancy. To evaluate adaptations to and pragmatism of the brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention and to use the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to describe context and implementation outcomes among clinician and staff participants. We incorporated data from study team members, clinicians and staff participants, pregnant patients at participating clinics, and patient medical records. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using surveys, chart reviews, study team notes, interviews, and focus groups. Adaptations were evaluated using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME) and pragmatism was measured with PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2). MI4MI was effective at improving participants' vaccine communication experiences. Adoption was limited by our recruitment approach. MI4MI implementation was shaped by contextual factors and associated adaptations related to the COVID pandemic and clinic and participant characteristics. Virtual asynchronous intervention delivery had mixed effects on adoption and implementation that varied across clinics and participants. Participants expressed interest in maintaining the MI4MI intervention moving forward; however, identification of sustainability infrastructure was limited. MI4MI was evaluated to be relatively pragmatic. Contextual factors strongly shaped implementation of MI4MI. Future iterations of MI4MI should include training delivery modes and incentives that accommodate a range of participants across job roles and organizational settings. Future studies including control clinics are needed to measure effectiveness for increasing vaccination and comparing virtual versus hybrid implementation strategies.

We studied a training program called Brief Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI). This program tried to teach doctors and other healthcare workers how to talk with pregnant people about vaccines. We looked at how this training program worked in different clinics. We talked with and gave surveys to the healthcare workers and patients at clinics who participated in this program. Healthcare workers who completed the MI4MI program had better experiences talking about vaccines after the training. This study happened during the early COVID pandemic, so training was done online. Healthcare workers and clinics had mixed responses to the online training approach. COVID made it hard for some people to participate. Many people who did the training said they would like to keep using the MI4MI training and skills in the future. More studies are needed to learn if the MI4MI training increases vaccination rates and to look at ways to improve online training.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Routine vaccination coverage for adolescents living in the rural US is lower than adolescents living in urban areas. We sought to measure the effect of Boot Camp Translation (BCT), a community-based participatory intervention, on rural adolescent vaccination coverage. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was performed September 2018-November 2021 involving 16 rural Colorado counties. Intervention county community members engaged in BCT to develop interventions to improve adolescent vaccination locally. Adolescent vaccination coverage was measured using the Colorado Immunization Information System. RESULTS: For 11-12-year-olds, HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage was lower post- versus pre-intervention in the control and intervention groups. For 11-12-year-olds in the intervention group, there was no significant difference post- versus pre-intervention in the odds of HPV vaccine initiation (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [aROR] = 0.93, 95 %: 0.85-1.02, p = 0.10) or up-to-date HPV vaccination (aROR: 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.98-1.23, p = 0.11) compared with the control group. Among 11-12-year-olds, the decrease in the proportion vaccinated with MenACWY and Tdap in the intervention group was significantly greater than the control group. Among 13-17-year-olds, there were significant increases in HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: 11-12-year-old vaccination coverage decreased slightly from pre- to post-intervention while 13-17-year-old vaccination coverage increased. We saw no effect from the BCT intervention. Our findings about the effectiveness of BCT for improving vaccine uptake may not be generalizable because the study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03955757.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy is a growing public health concern and has been classified as a major threat to global health by the World Health Organization. While there has been extensive research on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals, little is known about provaccination advocates. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics, attitudes, activities and motivations of provaccination advocates. METHODS: An internet survey was conducted in July-November 2019. US vaccine advocacy groups were invited to partner in survey distribution. Participants were recruited from a convenience sample of their members. Advocacy activities were categorized as policy related, in-person or online. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 1239) were mostly female (82%), White (87%) and highly educated (90%). Most reported Democratic political affiliation (66%). The most common occupation was health care practitioner (38%). Most respondents (90%) agreed that a policy that did not allow patients to refuse or spread-out vaccines would encourage them to choose that clinic. The most common policy-related activity was contacting an elected official about vaccines. The most common in-person activity was speaking with a friend or family member about vaccines. The most reported online activity was using social media to advocate for vaccines. The most common motivation for vaccine advocacy was a sense of responsibility as a community member. CONCLUSIONS: Provaccine individuals engaged in a variety of advocacy activities and were motivated by responsibility to their community in addition to other factors. Continued work to better understand and motivate vaccine advocates may inform efforts to bolster vaccine confidence and influence those who accept vaccines to become advocates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts that provides advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, normally meets 3 times per year to develop US vaccine recommendations. The ACIP met October 25 to 26, 2023, to discuss meningococcal vaccines, mpox vaccines, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, influenza vaccines, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, and the combined pediatric and adult immunization schedules for 2024. The ACIP also held special meetings on September 12 and September 22 to discuss COVID-19 2023-2024 vaccine recommendations and RSV immunization in pregnant women. This update summarizes the proceedings of these meetings that are most relevant to the pediatric population. Major updates for pediatric clinicians include recommendations for XBB monovalent COVID-19 immunization for the 2023-2024 respiratory season, the recently licensed pentavalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine and mpox vaccination in high-risk young adults, and discussion regarding the parallel strategies of protection against RSV disease in infants via maternal immunization during pregnancy or direct prophylaxis of infants with nirsevimab.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Home health aides (HHAs) care for patients highly vulnerable to COVID-19 and are disproportionately women from minority communities that have been adversely impacted by COVID-19. Yet, direct care workers are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to others. As the pandemic evolves, interest in vaccination may decrease suggesting the need for relevant vaccine messaging to HHAs. Objectives: (1) to describe HHAs and administrators' perspectives related to COVID-19 vaccination messaging, and (2) to co-design a Communication Toolkit to create COVID-19 vaccine messages. Methods: HHAs and administrators from 4 geographically diverse Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) hospice agencies were recruited for a multi-method process involving qualitative interviews (17 HHAs and 5 administrators), community engagement (CE) studios, and development of a Communication Toolkit. Interviews were guided by the PEN-3 conceptual framework to explore barriers and facilitators to vaccination. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Despite power differences, HHAs and administrators share a commitment to protecting patients affected by serious illness. HHAs desire vaccine messaging that includes personal narratives, good news about the vaccine, and facts about benefits and risks of the vaccine. Preferred message formats include the agency intranet, daily briefings, or "little seeds" (ie, short, high-impact information). Through the studios, HHAs provided input on a Toolkit prototype with messages tailored to the context of home care. Conclusions: Grounded in the commitment of HHAs and administrators to protecting vulnerable patients, we co-created an adaptable Communication Toolkit to address COVID-19 vaccination misinformation and mistrust among direct care workers.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have impacted parental attitudes toward childhood vaccines. However, few data sources followed attitudes before and after onset of the pandemic. We used data from a parental survey to describe the effect of the pandemic on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccines. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the Health eMoms survey which randomly sampled birthing parents in Colorado from 2018 to 2021 on several health topics including vaccine hesitancy. Population weighted multivariable regression was used to measure the association between overall vaccine hesitancy and 5 individual hesitancy questions and different COVID-19 pandemic periods: prepandemic (April 2018-February 2020); pandemic prevaccine (April 2020-December 2020); and pandemic postvaccine (January 2021-August 2021), adjusting for demographic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 20.4% (726/3553) of respondents were vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy during pandemic time periods was not different from the prepandemic period (prevaccine adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65-1.04; postvaccine aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.85-1.34). In analyses of individual hesitancy questions, parents were more likely to be unsure about trusting vaccine information in the pandemic postvaccine time period compared with the prepandemic period (aOR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.55-2.96), and less likely to be unsure about their hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with changes in parental vaccine hesitancy overall, although there were changes in trust about vaccine information and a polarization of vaccination attitudes.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a group of medical and public health experts that provides advice to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, normally meets 3 times per year to develop US vaccine recommendations. The ACIP met June 21-23, 2023, to discuss respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines, influenza vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, meningococcal vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccines. The ACIP also held a special meeting on August 3, 2023, to discuss RSV prophylaxis in infants. This update summarizes the proceedings of these meetings that are most relevant to the pediatric population. Major updates for pediatric clinicians include a new recommendation for the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab for prevention of RSV disease in all infants, recommendations regarding use of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, and discussion of potential forthcoming changes to meningococcal and COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 inequities are abundant in low-income communities of color. Addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy to promote equitable and sustained vaccination for underserved communities requires a multi-level, scalable, and sustainable approach. It is also essential that efforts acknowledge the broader healthcare needs of these communities including engagement in preventive services. METHODS: This is a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study that will include a multi-level, longitudinal, mixed-methods data collection approach designed to assess the sustained impact of a co-created multicomponent strategy relying on bidirectional learning, shared decision-making, and expertise by all team members. The study capitalizes on a combination of implementation strategies including mHealth outreach with culturally appropriate messaging, care coordination to increase engagement in high priority preventive services, and the co-design of these strategies using community advisory boards led by Community Weavers. Community Weavers are individuals with lived experience as members of an underserved community serving as cultural brokers between communities, public health systems, and researchers to co-create community-driven, culturally sensitive public health solutions. The study will use an adaptive implementation approach operationalized in a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design of 300 participants from three sites in a Federally Qualified Health Center in Southern California. This design will allow examining the impact of various implementation strategy components and deliver more intensive support to those who benefit from it most. The primary effectiveness outcomes are COVID-19 vaccine completion, engagement in preventive services, and vaccine confidence. The primary implementation outcomes are reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the multicomponent strategy over a 12-month follow-up period. Mixed-effects logistic regression models will be used to examine program impacts and will be triangulated with qualitative data from participants and implementers. DISCUSSION: This study capitalizes on community engagement, implementation science, health equity and communication, infectious disease, and public health perspectives to co-create a multicomponent strategy to promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and preventive services for underserved communities in San Diego. The study design emphasizes broad engagement of our community and clinic partners leading to culturally sensitive and acceptable strategies to produce lasting and sustainable increases in vaccine equity and preventive services engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05841810 May 3, 2023.

Asunto(s)