Mandy A. Allison

School start times for adolescents

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes insufficient sleep in adolescents as an important public health issue that significantly affects the health and safety, as well as the academic success, of our nation’s middle and high school students. Although a number of factors, including biological changes in sleep associated with puberty, lifestyle choices, and academic demands, negatively affect middle and high school students’ ability to obtain sufficient sleep, the evidence strongly implicates earlier school start times (ie, before 8:30 am) as a key modifiable contributor to insufficient sleep, as well as circadian rhythm disruption, in this population. Furthermore, a substantial body of research has now demonstrated that delaying school start times is an effective countermeasure to chronic sleep loss and has a wide range of potential benefits to students with regard to physical and mental health, safety, and academic achievement. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports the efforts of school districts to optimize sleep in students and urges high schools and middle schools to aim for start times that allow students the opportunity to achieve optimal levels of sleep (8.5–9.5 hours) and to improve physical (eg, reduced obesity risk) and mental (eg, lower rates of depression) health, safety (eg, drowsy driving crashes), academic performance, and quality of life.

School-Based Health Centers: Improving Access and Quality of Care for Low-Income Adolescents

OBJECTIVES. We sought to compare visit rates, emergency care use, and markers of quality of care between adolescents who use school-based health centers and those who use other community centers within a safety-net health care system for low-income and uninsured patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS. In this retrospective cohort study we used Denver Health electronic medical chart data, the Denver Health immunization registry, and Denver Public Schools enrollment data for the period from August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003. The cohort included all 14- to 17-year-old Denver Public Schools high school enrollees who were active Denver Health patients and were either uninsured or insured by Medicaid or the State Childrens Health Insurance Program. “School-based health center users” were those who had used a Denver Health school-based health center; “other users” were those who had used a Denver Health community clinic but not a school-based health center. Markers of quality included having a health maintenance visit and receipt of an influenza vaccine, tetanus booster, and hepatitis B vaccine if indicated. Multiple logistic regression analysis that controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, insurance status, chronic illness, and visit rate was used to compare school-based health center users to other users. RESULTS. Although school-based health center users (n = 790) were less likely than other users (n = 925) to be insured (37% vs 73%), they were more likely to have made ≥3 primary care visits (52% vs 34%), less likely to have used emergency care (17% vs 34%), and more likely to have received a health maintenance visit (47% vs 33%), an influenza vaccine (45% vs 18%), a tetanus booster (33% vs 21%), and a hepatitis B vaccine (46% vs 20%). CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that, within a safety-net system, school-based health centers augment access to care and quality of care for underserved adolescents compared with traditional outpatient care sites.

Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion

The primary mission of any school system is to educate students. To achieve this goal, the school district must maintain a culture and environment where all students feel safe, nurtured, and valued and where order and civility are expected standards of behavior. Schools cannot allow unacceptable behavior to interfere with the school district’s primary mission. To this end, school districts adopt codes of conduct for expected behaviors and policies to address unacceptable behavior. In developing these policies, school boards must weigh the severity of the offense and the consequences of the punishment and the balance between individual and institutional rights and responsibilities. Out-of-school suspension and expulsion are the most severe consequences that a school district can impose for unacceptable behavior. Traditionally, these consequences have been reserved for offenses deemed especially severe or dangerous and/or for recalcitrant offenders. However, the implications and consequences of out-of-school suspension and expulsion and “zero-tolerance” are of such severity that their application and appropriateness for a developing child require periodic review. The indications and effectiveness of exclusionary discipline policies that demand automatic or rigorous application are increasingly questionable. The impact of these policies on offenders, other children, school districts, and communities is broad. Periodic scrutiny of policies should be placed not only on the need for a better understanding of the educational, emotional, and social impact of out-of-school suspension and expulsion on the individual student but also on the greater societal costs of such rigid policies. Pediatricians should be prepared to assist students and families affected by out-of-school suspension and expulsion and should be willing to guide school districts in their communities to find more effective and appropriate alternatives to exclusionary discipline policies for the developing child. A discussion of preventive strategies and alternatives to out-of-school suspension and expulsion, as well as recommendations for the role of the physician in matters of out-of-school suspension and expulsion are included. School-wide positive behavior support/positive behavior intervention and support is discussed as an effective alternative.

The Crucial Role of Recess in School

Recess is at the heart of a vigorous debate over the role of schools in promoting the optimal development of the whole child. A growing trend toward reallocating time in school to accentuate the more academic subjects has put this important facet of a child’s school day at risk. Recess serves as a necessary break from the rigors of concentrated, academic challenges in the classroom. But equally important is the fact that safe and well-supervised recess offers cognitive, social, emotional, and physical benefits that may not be fully appreciated when a decision is made to diminish it. Recess is unique from, and a complement to, physical education—not a substitute for it. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that recess is a crucial and necessary component of a child’s development and, as such, it should not be withheld for punitive or academic reasons.

U.S. Physicians’ Perspective of Adult Vaccine Delivery

Context Vaccination rates in adults are low, even though more than 95% of Americans who die of vaccine-preventable disease each year are adults. General internists and family medicine physicians were surveyed about vaccine perceptions and practices. Contribution Barriers related to vaccine delivery included lack of regular assessment of vaccine status, insufficient stocking of some vaccines, and financial disincentives for vaccination in the primary care setting. Use of electronic tools to record and prompt vaccination was low. Most physicians surveyed accepted vaccination outside of the medical home but believed communication between themselves and alternate vaccinators was suboptimal. Implication System changes are necessary to improve adult vaccination in the United States. The Editors Vaccination remains underutilized in adults. An annual average of more than 30 000 Americans die of vaccine-preventable diseases, mostly influenza, and more than 95% of these persons are adults (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends 12 vaccines for adults, including vaccines recommended universally, vaccines for persons who did not receive them in childhood (catch up), and vaccines for those in high-risk groups (2). According to recent estimates (3, 4), only 62% and 65% of adults aged 65 years or older received a pneumococcal or influenza vaccine, respectively; only 20% of high-risk adults aged 19 to 64 years received a pneumococcal vaccine; and only 16% of adults aged 60 years or older received a herpes zoster vaccine. All of these percentages are well short of Healthy People 2020 goals (5). None of the studies that examined reasons for low rates of adult vaccination (612) comprehensively examined adult vaccination. Furthermore, the context of adult vaccination has changed in recent years: There are newly recommended adult vaccines, some vaccines are now covered by Medicare Part D (a pharmaceutical benefit), and the site of vaccine delivery has shifted away from primary care settings. Almost half of adult seasonal influenza vaccinations in the 20102011 season occurred in health departments, pharmacies, work places, or other nonmedical locations (13), but physician perceptions regarding collaboration with alternate vaccinators have only been documented limitedly (14). Given the increase in the number of vaccines recommended for adults and the increasing importance of alternative sites for vaccine delivery, we sought to describe the following among U.S. primary care physicians: practices regarding assessing vaccination status and stocking of recommended adult vaccines; barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; characteristics of physicians who report greater financial barriers to delivering vaccines; and practices, experiences, and attitudes regarding vaccination outside of the medical home. Methods Study Setting From March to June 2012, we administered a survey to a network of primary care physicians (Supplement). The Human Subjects Review Board at the University of Colorado Denver approved this study as exempt research that did not require written informed consent. Supplement. Survey on Adult Immunization and Preventive Care Study Sample The Vaccine Policy Collaborative Initiative conducted this study (15). The Initiative was designed collaboratively with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to perform rapid-turnaround surveys to assess physician attitudes about vaccine issues. We developed a network of primary care physicians for this program by recruiting general internists (GIMs) and family medicine physicians (FMs) from the memberships of the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). We conducted quota sampling (16) to ensure that network physicians were similar to the ACP and AAFP memberships with respect to region, urban versus rural location, and practice setting (GIMs only). We previously demonstrated that survey responses from network physicians compared with those of physicians randomly sampled from American Medical Association physician databases (which reflect all practicing physicians and not just members of the American Medical Association) had similar demographic characteristics, practice attributes, and attitudes about a range of vaccination issues (16). Survey Design We developed a survey appraising physician practices regarding assessment of vaccination status for and stocking of the 11 adult vaccines routinely recommended in 2012 (17), as well as referral practices to alternate vaccinators when vaccines were not stocked. We used 4-point Likert scales for questions assessing attitudes about the role of different adult vaccine providers (strongly agree to strongly disagree) and barriers to stocking and administering vaccines in the practice (major barrier to not a barrier) (18). For brevity, certain questions were asked in a generic manner and were not related to specific vaccines. After an advisory panel of GIMs (n= 6) and FMs (n= 7) pretested the survey, we modified it on the basis of their feedback. The survey was then piloted by 86 primary care physicians (63 GIMs and 23 FMs) and further modified according to this feedback. Survey Administration According to physician preference, we sent the survey either over the Internet (Verint; Melville, New York) or through the U.S. Postal Service. We sent the Internet group an initial e-mail with up to 8 e-mail reminders, and we sent the mail group an initial mailing and up to 2 additional reminders. Nonrespondents in the Internet group were also sent a mail survey in case of problems with e-mail correspondence. We patterned the mail protocol on Dillmans tailored design method (19). Statistical Analysis We pooled Internet and mail surveys together for analyses because other studies have found that physician attitudes are similar when obtained by either method (2022). We compared respondents with nonrespondents on all available characteristics using Wilcoxon and chi-square analyses. Characteristics of nonrespondents were obtained from the recruitment survey for the sentinel networks. We found financial barriers to be commonly reported and therefore assessed whether certain characteristics of primary care physicians were associated with perceiving more financial barriers because this information could lead to actionable policymaking. To assess associations with perception of financial barriers and to avoid issues associated with multiple comparisons, we created a financial barriers scale composed of 8 financial barrier survey questions (Table 1). We combined the scores of these 8 variables (not a barrier= 0; minor barrier= 1; moderate barrier= 2; major barrier= 3) and divided that sum by the number of questions answered. We excluded respondents who had answered fewer than 5 of the 8 questions on financial barriers. A Cronbach was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the financial barriers scale. We used this scale as the outcome measure to evaluate associations between financial barriers and demographic and practice characteristics (sex, age, region, practice location, practice setting, number of providers in the practice, and proportion of patients with Medicare Part D and Medicaid) in a multivariable linear regression model for each specialty. Analyses were done by using SAS, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Table 1. Perceived Barriers to Stocking and Administering Vaccines for Adult Patients in Respondents Practice Role of the Funding Source Investigators at the CDC were involved with the survey design, analysis, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Results Survey Response Rates and Respondent Characteristics Response rates were 79% for GIMs (352 of 443) and 62% for FMs (255 of 409). All questions had fewer than 8% missing items, with most having fewer than 5% missing. The number of missing items did not differ between GIMs and FMs or between physicians who responded by Internet and those who responded by mail. No GIMs and only 2 FMs were from the same practice site. Respondents and nonrespondents did not differ significantly by sex, age, region, practice location, practice setting, or number of providers in the practice. Table 2 displays characteristics of respondents and their practices and patient populations. Table 2. Comparison of Respondents and Nonrespondents and Additional Characteristics of Respondents Practices Current Practices Regarding Assessing Need for and Stocking of Routinely Recommended Adult Vaccines Almost all physicians reported assessing patients vaccination status at annual visits (GIMs and FMs, 97%) or initial visits (GIMs, 94%; FMs, 89%), whereas fewer physicians (GIMs, 29%; FMs, 32%) reported doing so at every visit. The most commonly reported method for assessing immunization status was to check the medical record (GIMs, 95%; FMs, 96%). Although most physicians reported asking patients about vaccination status verbally (GIMs, 89%; FMs, 90%), by questionnaire (GIMs, 57%; FMs, 52%), or by having a staff member ask (GIMs, 57%; FMs, 66%), very few (GIMs, 1%; FMs, 2%) relied exclusively on patient-supplied information. A minority used immunization information systems (IISs) (GIMs, 8%; FMs, 36%). Forty-six percent of GIMs and 48% of FMs reported that it was moderately/very difficult to determine an adult patients vaccination status for vaccines other than seasonal influenza. Almost all physicians reported assessing the vaccination status for seasonal influenza; pneumococcal; tetanus and diphtheria (Td); tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap); and zoster vaccines. Fewer reported assessing the status for the remainder of the recommended vaccines (Figure 1). Family physicians were more likely than GIMs to assess the need for hepatitis A; hepatitis B; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); human papillomavirus; meningococcal; and varicella vaccines. Figure 1. Percentage of physicians w

Parental attitudes about influenza immunization and school-based immunization for school-aged children.

Objectives: Identify parental beliefs and barriers related to influenza immunization of school-aged children and acceptance of school-based influenza immunization. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of parents of elementary school-aged children in November 2008. Outcomes were receipt of influenza vaccine, acceptance of school-based immunization, and barriers to immunization. Results: Response rate was 65% (259/397). Parents reported that 26% of children had received the vaccine and 24% intended receipt. A total of 50% did not plan to immunize. Factors associated with receipt were belief that immunization is a social norm (adjusted odds ratios [AOR], 10.8; 95% CI, 2.8–41.8), belief in benefit (AOR, 7.8; CI, 1.8–33.8), discussion with a doctor (AOR, 7.0; CI, 2.9–16.8), and belief that vaccine is safe (AOR, 4.0; CI, 1.0–15.8). A total of 75% of parents would immunize their children at school if the vaccine were free, including 59% (76/129) who did not plan to immunize. Factors associated with acceptance of school-based immunization were belief in benefit (AOR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.7–14.0), endorsement of medical setting barriers (AOR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.3–10.3), and beliefs that immunization is a social norm (AOR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4–7.6) and that the child is susceptible to influenza (AOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2–5.7). Medical setting barriers were competing time demands, inconvenience, and cost; school barriers were parents desire to be with children and competence of person delivering the vaccine. Conclusions: School-based immunization programs can increase immunization coverage by targeting parents for whom time demands and inconvenience are barriers, demonstrating that immunization is a social norm, and addressing concerns about influenza vaccine benefit and safety.

Physician response to parental requests to spread out the recommended vaccine schedule.

OBJECTIVES: To assess among US physicians (1) frequency of requests to spread out recommended vaccination schedule for children <2 years, (2) attitudes regarding such requests, and (3) strategies used and perceived effectiveness in response to such requests. METHODS: An e-mail and mail survey of a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and family physicians from June 2012 through October 2012. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (534 of 815). In a typical month, 93% reported some parents of children <2 years requested to spread out vaccines; 21% reported ≥10% of parents made this request. Most respondents thought these parents were putting their children at risk for disease (87%) and that it was more painful for children (84%), but if they agreed to requests, it would build trust with families (82%); further, they believed that if they did not agree, families might leave their practice (80%). Forty percent reported this issue had decreased their job satisfaction. Most agreed to spread out vaccines when requested, either often/always (37%) or sometimes (37%); 2% would often/always, 4% would sometimes, and 12% would rarely dismiss families from their practice if they wanted to spread out the primary series. Physicians reported using a variety of strategies in response to requests but did not think they were effective. CONCLUSIONS: Virtually all providers encounter requests to spread out vaccines in a typical month and, despite concerns, most are agreeing to do so. Providers are using many strategies in response but think few are effective. Evidence-based interventions to increase timely immunization are needed to guide primary care and public health practice.

Snacks, Sweetened Beverages, Added Sugars, and Schools

Concern over childhood obesity has generated a decade-long reformation of school nutrition policies. Food is available in school in 3 venues: federally sponsored school meal programs; items sold in competition to school meals, such as a la carte, vending machines, and school stores; and foods available in myriad informal settings, including packed meals and snacks, bake sales, fundraisers, sports booster sales, in-class parties, or other school celebrations. High-energy, low-nutrient beverages, in particular, contribute substantial calories, but little nutrient content, to a student’s diet. In 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that sweetened drinks be replaced in school by water, white and flavored milks, or 100% fruit and vegetable beverages. Since then, school nutrition has undergone a significant transformation. Federal, state, and local regulations and policies, along with alternative products developed by industry, have helped decrease the availability of nutrient-poor foods and beverages in school. However, regular access to foods of high energy and low quality remains a school issue, much of it attributable to students, parents, and staff. Pediatricians, aligning with experts on child nutrition, are in a position to offer a perspective promoting nutrient-rich foods within calorie guidelines to improve those foods brought into or sold in schools. A positive emphasis on nutritional value, variety, appropriate portion, and encouragement for a steady improvement in quality will be a more effective approach for improving nutrition and health than simply advocating for the elimination of added sugars.

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives About HPV Vaccine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because physicians’ practices could be modified to reduce missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, our goal was to: (1) describe self-reported practices regarding recommending the HPV vaccine; (2) estimate the frequency of parental deferral of HPV vaccination; and (3)identify characteristics associated with not discussing it. METHODS: A national survey among pediatricians and family physicians (FP) was conducted between October 2013 and January 2014. Using multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with not discussing HPV vaccination were examined. RESULTS: Response rates were 82% for pediatricians (364 of 442) and 56% for FP (218 of 387). For 11-12 year-old girls, 60% of pediatricians and 59% of FP strongly recommend HPV vaccine; for boys,52% and 41% ostrongly recommen. More than one-half reported ≥25% of parents deferred HPV vaccination. At the 11-12 year well visit, 84% of pediatricians and 75% of FP frequently/always discuss HPV vaccination. Compared with physicians who frequently/always discuss , those who occasionally/rarely discuss(18%) were more likely to be FP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–3.5), be male (aOR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.1–3.1]), disagree that parents will accept HPV vaccine if discussed with other vaccines (aOR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3–4.2]), report that 25% to 49% (aOR: 2.8 [95% CI: 1.1–6.8]) or ≥50% (aOR: 7.8 [95% CI: 3.4–17.6]) of parents defer, and express concern about waning immunity (aOR: 3.4 [95% CI: 1.8–6.4]). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing physicians’ perceptions about parental acceptance of HPV vaccine, the possible advantages of discussing HPV vaccination with other recommended vaccines, and concerns about waning immunity could lead to increased vaccination rates.

HPV Vaccination of Boys in Primary Care Practices

OBJECTIVEnIn October 2011, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4) for the routine immunization schedule for 11- to 12-year-old boys. Before October 2011, HPV4 was permissively recommended for boys. We conducted a study in 2010 to provide data that could guide efforts to implement routine HPV4 immunization in boys. Our objectives were to describe primary care physicians: 1) knowledge and attitudes about human papillomavirus (HPV)-related disease and HPV4, 2) recommendation and administration practices regarding HPV vaccine in boys compared to girls, 3) perceived barriers to HPV4 administration in boys, and 4) personal and practice characteristics associated with recommending HPV4 to boys.nnnMETHODSnWe conducted a mail and Internet survey in a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and family medicine physicians from July 2010 to Septemberxa02010.nnnRESULTSnThe response rate was 72% (609 of 842). Most physicians thought that the routine use of HPV4 in boys was justified. Although it was permissively recommended, 33% recommended HPV4 to 11- to 12-year-old boys and recommended it more strongly to older male adolescents. The most common barriers to HPV4 administration were related to vaccine financing. Physicians who reported recommending HPV4 for 11- to 12-year-old boys were more likely to be from urban locations, perceive that HPV4 is efficacious, perceive that HPV-related disease is severe, and routinely discuss sexual health with 11- to 12-year-olds.nnnCONCLUSIONSnAlthough most physicians support HPV4 for boys, physician education and evidence-based tools are needed to improve implementation of a vaccination program for males in primary care settings.