Allison T. Chamberlain

Factors Associated with Intention to Receive Influenza and Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccines during Pregnancy: A Focus on Vaccine Hesitancy and Perceptions of Disease Severity and Vaccine Safety.

BACKGROUND: Improving influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine coverage among pregnant women is needed. PURPOSE: To assess factors associated with intention to receive influenza and/or Tdap vaccinations during pregnancy with a focus on perceptions of influenza and pertussis disease severity and influenza vaccine safety. METHODS: Participants were 325 pregnant women in Georgia recruited from December 2012 – April 2013 who had not yet received a 2012/2013 influenza vaccine or a Tdap vaccine while pregnant. Women completed a survey assessing influenza vaccination history, likelihood of receiving antenatal influenza and/or Tdap vaccines, and knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about influenza, pertussis, and their associated vaccines. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent and 81% of women believed influenza and pertussis, respectively, would be serious during pregnancy while 87% and 92% believed influenza and pertussis, respectively, would be serious to their infants. Perception of pertussis severity for their infant was strongly associated with an intention to receive a Tdap vaccine before delivery (p=0.004). Despite perceptions of disease severity for themselves and their infants, only 34% and 44% intended to receive antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccines, respectively. Forty-six percent had low perceptions of safety regarding the influenza vaccine during pregnancy, and compared to women who perceived the influenza vaccine as safe, women who perceived the vaccine as unsafe were less likely to intend to receive antenatal influenza (48% vs. 20%; p < 0.001) or Tdap (53% vs. 33%; p < 0.001) vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this baseline survey suggest that while pregnant women who remain unvaccinated against influenza within the first three months of the putative influenza season may be aware of the risks influenza and pertussis pose to themselves and their infants, many remain reluctant to receive influenza and Tdap vaccines antenatally. To improve vaccine uptake in the obstetric setting, our findings support development of evidence-based vaccine promotion interventions which emphasize vaccine safety during pregnancy and mention disease severity in infancy.

Impact of Statins on Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Medically Attended Acute Respiratory Illness

BACKGROUND Statins have antiinflammatory effects that may impact vaccine-induced immune responses. We investigated the impact of statin therapy on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) against medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI). METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study over nine influenza seasons using research databases of a large managed care organization in the United States. Influenza vaccination and statin prescription statuses of cohort members and MAARI cases were ascertained on a per-season basis. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of MAARI were estimated using Poisson regression and stratified by statin use. Using a ratio of ratios approach, we compared IRRs from periods during to IRRs from periods before influenza circulation and then used relative IRRs to compute VE. RESULTS After adjustment for multiple prespecified covariates, the influenza VE against MAARI was lower among statin users than nonusers during periods of local (14.1% vs 22.9%; mean difference, 11.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.7% to 26.1%) and widespread (12.6% vs 26.2%; mean difference, 18.4%; 95% CI, 2.9%-36.2%) influenza circulation. CONCLUSIONS In this study, statin therapy was associated with reduced influenza VE against MAARI. Since many cases of MAARI are not caused by influenza, studies of the impact of statins on influenza VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza are needed.

Missed Opportunities: A National Survey of Obstetricians About Attitudes on Maternal and Infant Immunization

The recent reoccurrence of several vaccine-preventable diseases demonstrates the need for new techniques to promote childhood vaccination. Many mothers make decisions regarding vaccination of their children during pregnancy. As a result, obstetricians have a unique opportunity to influence maternal decisions on this crucial component of child health. Our objective was to understand OB/GYNs’ attitudes, beliefs, and current practices toward providing vaccinations to pregnant patients and providing information about routine childhood immunizations during standard prenatal care. We surveyed OB/GYNs in the United States about their vaccination practices and perceptions during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. Most (84%) respondents indicated their practice would be administering H1N1 vaccines to pregnant patients. While a majority (98%) of responding providers felt childhood vaccination is important, relatively few (47%) felt that they could influence mothers’ vaccination choices for their children. Discussion of routine childhood immunization between obstetricians and their patients is an area for future improvements in childhood vaccination.

Improving influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy: A cluster-randomized trial of a multi-component antenatal vaccine promotion package in late influenza season

BACKGROUND Evidence-based interventions to improve influenza vaccine coverage among pregnant women are needed, particularly among those who remain unvaccinated late into the influenza season. Improving rates of antenatal tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination is also needed. PURPOSE To test the effectiveness of a practice-, provider-, and patient-focused influenza and Tdap vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccination in the obstetric setting. METHODS A cluster-randomized trial among 11 obstetric practices in Georgia was conducted in 2012-2013. Intervention practices adopted the intervention package that included identification of a vaccine champion, provider-to-patient talking points, educational brochures, posters, lapel buttons, and iPads loaded with a patient-centered tutorial. Participants were recruited from December 2012-April 2013 and included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women in Georgia. Random effects regression models were used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS Data on antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccine receipt were obtained for 300 (92.3%) and 291 (89.5%) women, respectively. Although antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccination rates were higher in the intervention group than the control group, improvements were not significant (For influenza: risk difference (RD)=3.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.0%, 11.2%; for Tdap: RD=1.3%, 95% CI: -10.7%, 13.2%). While the majority of intervention package components were positively associated with antenatal vaccine receipt, a providers recommendation was the factor most strongly associated with actual receipt, regardless of study group or vaccine. CONCLUSIONS The intervention package did not significantly improve antenatal influenza or Tdap vaccine coverage. More research is needed to determine what motivates women remaining unvaccinated against influenza late into the influenza season to get vaccinated. Future research should quantify the extent to which clinical interventions can bolster a providers recommendation for vaccination. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.

Biosafety Training and Incident-Reporting Practices in the United States: A 2008 Survey of Biosafety Professionals

Concern over the adequacy of biosafety training and incident-reporting practices within biological laboratories in the United States has risen in recent years due to the increase in research on infectious diseases and the concomitant rise in the number of biocontainment laboratories. Reports of laboratory-acquired infections and delays in reporting such incidents have also contributed to the concern. Consequently, biosafety training and incident-reporting practices are being given considerable attention by both the executive branch and Congress. We conducted a 51-question survey of biosafety professionals in June 2008 to capture information on methods used to train new laboratory workers within biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) laboratories, animal biosafety level 2 (ABSL-2) laboratories, biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratories, and animal biosafety level 3 (ABSL-3) laboratories. The survey results suggest nearly all senior scientists, faculty, staff, and students working in these biocontainment laboratories are required to have biosafety training, and three-quarters of respondents indicated a biosafety or environmental health and safety professional provides explicit instructions on reporting incidents to each new lab worker. Only half of the respondents with BSL-2/ABSL-2 laboratories at their institution and 59% of respondents from institutions with BSL-3/ABSL-3 laboratories indicated custodial or maintenance workers are required to receive biosafety training at the BSL-2/ABSL-2 and BSL-3/ABSL-3 levels, respectively. Opportunities for targeted improvement such as providing training to non-traditional laboratory workers (e.g., custodians, maintenance workers) and posting laboratory incident-reporting protocols on institutional environmental health and safety websites may exist. Variations in biosafety training requirements, incident-reporting practices, and attitudes towards laboratory safety revealed through this survey of biosafety professionals also support the development of core competencies in biosafety practice that could lead to more uniform practices and robust safety cultures.

A randomized trial of maternal influenza immunization decision-making: A test of persuasive messaging models

ABSTRACT Objective: We sought to examine the effectiveness of persuasive communication interventions on influenza vaccination uptake among black/African American pregnant women in Atlanta, Georgia. Methods: We recruited black/African American pregnant women ages 18 to 50 y from Atlanta, GA to participate in a prospective, randomized controlled trial of influenza immunization messaging conducted from January to April 2013. Eligible participants were randomized to 3 study arms. We conducted follow-up questionnaires on influenza immunization at 30-days post-partum with all groups. Chi-square and t tests evaluated group differences, and outcome intention-to-treat assessment utilized log-binomial regression models. Results: Of the 106 enrolled, 95 women completed the study (90% retention), of which 31 were randomly assigned to affective messaging intervention (“Pregnant Pause” video), 30 to cognitive messaging intervention (“Vaccines for a Healthy Pregnancy” video), and 34 to a comparison condition (receipt of the Influenza Vaccine Information Statement). The three groups were balanced on baseline demographic characteristics and reported health behaviors. At baseline, most women (63%, n = 60) reported no receipt of seasonal influenza immunization during the previous 5 y. They expressed a low likelihood (2.1 ± 2.8 on 0-10 scale) of obtaining influenza immunization during their current pregnancy. At 30-days postpartum follow-up, influenza immunization was low among all participants (7-13%) demonstrating no effect after a single exposure to either affective messaging (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.30-4.01) or cognitive messaging interventions (RR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.11-2.88). Women cited various reasons for not obtaining maternal influenza immunizations. These included concern about vaccine harm (47%, n = 40), low perceived influenza infection risk (31%, n = 26), and a history of immunization nonreceipt (24%, n = 20). Conclusion: The findings reflect the limitations associated with a single exposure to varying maternal influenza immunization message approaches on vaccine behavior. For this population, repeated influenza immunization exposures may be warranted with alterations in message format, content, and relevance for coverage improvement.

Impact of a multi-component antenatal vaccine promotion package on improving knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy

ABSTRACT Objective: Understanding whether interventions designed to improve antenatal vaccine uptake also change womens knowledge about vaccination is critical for improving vaccine coverage. This exploratory study evaluates the effectiveness of a multi-component influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine promotion package on improving womens knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. Study Design: In 2012/2013 a cluster-randomized trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of a vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal vaccine coverage. Participants included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women from 11 obstetric practices in Georgia. Eleven health beliefs measures were assessed at baseline and 2–3 months post-partum. Outcomes were differences in proportions of women citing favorable responses to each measure between study groups at follow-up. Results: Women enrolled in their third trimester had a higher probability of asking family members to vaccinate to protect the infant if they were in the intervention group versus the control group (36% vs. 22%; risk ratio [RR] = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.26). A similar association was not observed among women enrolled before their third trimester (39% vs. 44%; RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.73). There were no other significant differences at follow-up between study groups. Conclusions: While exposure to the intervention package may have raised awareness that vaccinating close contacts can protect an infant, there is little evidence that the package changed womens attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. Future research should ensure adequate exposure to the intervention and consider study design aspects including power to assess changes in secondary outcomes, discriminatory power of response options, and social desirability bias. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.

Partners in Immunization: 2010 Survey Examining Differences Among H1N1 Vaccine Providers in Washington State

Objectives. Emergency response involving mass vaccination requires the involvement of traditional vaccine providers as well as other health-care providers, including pharmacists, obstetricians, and health-care providers at correctional facilities We explored differences in provider experiences administering pandemic vaccine during a public health emergency. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of H1N1 vaccine providers in Washington State, examining topics regarding pandemic vaccine administration, participation in preparedness activities, and communication with public health agencies We also examined differences among provider types in responses received (n=619, 80.9% response rate). Results. Compared with other types of vaccine providers (e.g., family practitioners, obstetricians, and specialists), pharmacists reported higher patient volumes as well as higher patient-to-practitioner ratios, indicating a broad capacity for community reach. Pharmacists and correctional health-care providers reported lower staff coverage with seasonal and H1N1 vaccines. Compared with other vaccine providers, pharmacists were also more likely to report relying on public health information from federal sources They were less likely to report relying on local health departments (LHDs) for pandemic-related information, but indicated a desire to be included in LHD communications and plans. While all provider types indicated a high willingness to respond to a public health emergency, pharmacists were less likely to have participated in training, actual emergency response, or surge capacity initiatives. No obstetricians reported participating in surge capacity initiatives. Conclusions. Results from this survey suggest that efforts to increase communication and interaction between public health agencies and pharmacy, obstetric, and correctional health-care vaccine providers may improve future preparedness and emergency response capability and reach.

Use of Obstetric Practice Web Sites to Distribute Zika Virus Information to Pregnant Women During a Zika Virus Outbreak

Objective: To describe the current use of obstetric practice Web sites to disseminate Zika virus information to patients. Design: Review of 913 randomly selected practice Web sites and associated social media accounts in January and August 2016. Setting: Obstetric practice Web sites and associated social media accounts, United States of America. Participants: N/A. Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of obstetric practice Web sites and linked social media accounts providing Zika virus information. Results: Twenty-five percent and 35% of obstetric practice Web sites had information posted about Zika virus in January 2016 and August 2016, respectively. Between the 2 time points, the proportion of practices posting Zika virus content on Facebook and Twitter declined (Facebook: 15% in January, 9% in August; Twitter: 12% in January, 8% in August). In August, the most frequently observed Zika virus–related content themes were the use of insect repellent (14%) and travel advisories (14%). At both time points, practices affiliated with large university hospitals were more likely to have posted information on Zika virus than independent OB/GYN-only practices: January: odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) = 5.68 (3.50-9.20); August: OR (95% CI) = 8.37 (5.31-13.17). Similarly, practices associated with nonuniversity hospitals were more likely to have posted information than independent OB/GYN-only practices: January: OR (95% CI) = 2.71 (1.88-3.92); August: OR (95% CI) = 6.75 (4.75-9.60). Conclusion: Obstetric care practices are not fully utilizing their practice Web sites to relay Zika virus information to their patients. Since practitioner-sponsored Web sites have the capacity to directly reach the populations at greatest risk for Zika virus complications, public health professionals should consider adapting their materials and provider outreach campaigns to more easily accommodate Web site–based information dissemination during this type of public health emergency. There must be greater recognition of the value information gains in the eyes of the patient when it is validated by their own provider, especially when that patient is part of the highest-risk population for a given emergency. Public health organizations should strive to minimize the burden it takes for providers to relay useful resources to patients in order to maximize the impact that those resources can have.

Lack of Availability of Antenatal Vaccination Information on Obstetric Care Practice Web Sites.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of obstetric practice web sites in the United States providing information on antenatal influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination. METHODS: Using www.healthgrades.com, a national random sample of 1,003 obstetric practice web sites was examined for provision of information on antenatal vaccination and other preventive prenatal health topics. Data were collected for this cross-sectional study between September 25, 2014, and November 12, 2014. &khgr;2 tests and odds ratios were calculated to determine significance and magnitude of associations between provision of antenatal vaccination information and other practice characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1,003 web sites examined, 229 (22.8%) posted information pertaining to antenatal vaccinations. Only 105 web sites (10.5%) provided up-to-date information about both antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccination. Compared with the proportion posting on antenatal vaccination, significantly more web sites posted on safe foods (40.8%; P<.001), safe medications (36.9%; P<.001), and safe exercise (38.5%; P<.001) during pregnancy. When compared with web sites not mentioning these other prenatal health topics, web sites mentioning these topics were more likely to also mention antenatal vaccination (safe foods: 45.7% compared with 7.1%; odds ratio [OR] 11.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.65–16.01; safe medications: 45.4% compared with 9.6%; OR 7.8, CI 5.58–10.89; safe exercise: 45.9% compared with 8.4%; OR 9.2, CI 6.5–13.03). CONCLUSION: A majority of obstetric care practice web sites do not provide information on antenatal vaccinations. Obstetric practices should consider using their web sites to provide reliable information on antenatal vaccinations as many already do for other prenatal health topics.