Sean T. O’Leary

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

Pediatricians’ Attitudes About Collaborations With Other Community Vaccinators in the Delivery of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine

OBJECTIVE Achieving universal influenza vaccination among children may necessitate collaborative delivery involving both practices and community vaccinators. We assessed among pediatricians nationally their preferences regarding location of influenza vaccination for patient subgroups and their attitudes about collaborative delivery methods. METHODS The design/setting was a national survey conducted from July 2009 to October 2009. Participants included a representative sample of pediatricians from the American Academy of Pediatrics. RESULTS The response rate was 79% (330 of 416). Physicians felt strongly that vaccination should occur in their practice for children with chronic conditions (52%) and healthy 6-24-month-old infants (48%), but few felt strongly about healthy 5-18-year-olds (17%). Most (78%) thought having multiple delivery sites increased vaccination rates, and 86% thought that influenza vaccine should be available at school. Physicians reported being very/somewhat willing to hold joint community clinics with public health entities (76%) and to suggest to patient subgroups that they receive vaccine at community sites, including public clinics or pharmacies (76%). The most frequently reported barriers to collaborative delivery with community sites or school-located delivery included concerns about the following: estimating the amount of vaccine to order if children are vaccinated elsewhere (community 56%; school 80%); transfer of vaccine records (community 57%; school 78%); and reluctance of families to go outside of the office (community 45%; school 74%). CONCLUSIONS Most physicians are in favor of school-located or collaborative influenza vaccine delivery with community vaccinators, especially for healthy school-aged children. Collaborative approaches will require planning to ensure transfer of records, effective targeting of subgroups, and provisions to protect providers from being left with extra influenza supply.

Antibiotic prescribing practices in a multicenter cohort of patients hospitalized for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection.

OBJECTIVE Hospitalizations for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) are common. Optimizing antibiotic use for ABSSSIs requires an understanding of current management. The objective of this study was to evaluate antibiotic prescribing practices and factors affecting prescribing in a diverse group of hospitals. DESIGN Multicenter, retrospective cohort study. SETTING Seven community and academic hospitals. METHODS Children and adults hospitalized between June 2010 and May 2012 for cellulitis, wound infection, or cutaneous abscess were eligible. The primary endpoint was a composite of 2 prescribing practices representing potentially avoidable antibiotic exposure: (1) use of antibiotics with a broad spectrum of activity against gram-negative bacteria or (2) treatment duration greater than 10 days. RESULTS A total of 533 cases were included: 320 with nonpurulent cellulitis, 44 with wound infection or purulent cellulitis, and 169 with abscess. Of 492 cases with complete prescribing data, the primary endpoint occurred in 394 (80%) cases and varied significantly across hospitals (64%-97%; P < .001). By logistic regression, independent predictors of the primary endpoint included wound infection or purulent cellulitis (odds ratio [OR], 5.12 [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.46-17.88), head or neck involvement (OR, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.17-6.82]), adult cases (OR, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.18-4.11]), and admission to a community hospital (OR, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.05-3.44]). CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized for ABSSSI, use of antibiotics with broad gram-negative activity or treatment courses longer than 10 days were common. There may be substantial opportunity to reduce antibiotic exposure through shorter courses of therapy targeting gram-positive bacteria.

SMS text message reminders to improve infant vaccination coverage in Guatemala: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

Highlights • A novel SMS vaccine reminder platform was created in a LMIC.• SMS vaccine reminders were proven feasible to implement in a LMIC.• SMS vaccine reminders were acceptable to use in a LMIC with high user satisfaction.• SMS vaccine reminders have the potential for widespread scalability at low cost.

Seasonal influenza vaccination in adults: Practice and attitudes about collaborative delivery with community vaccinators

BACKGROUND Less than half of adults for whom seasonal influenza vaccine is recommended receive the vaccine. Little is known about physician willingness to collaborate with community vaccinators to improve delivery of vaccine. OBJECTIVES To assess among general internists and family medicine physicians: (1) seasonal influenza vaccination practices, (2) willingness to collaborate with community vaccinators, (3) barriers to collaboration, and (4) characteristics associated with unwillingness to refer patients to community sites for vaccination. DESIGN Mail and Internet-based survey. SETTING National survey conducted during July-October 2009. PARTICIPANTS General internists and family medicine physicians. MEASUREMENTS Survey responses on vaccination practices, willingness to collaborate to deliver vaccine and barriers to collaboration. RESULTS Response rates were 78% (337/432 general internists) and 70% (298/424 family medicine physicians). Ninety-eight percent of physicians reported giving influenza vaccine in their practice during the 2008-2009 season. Most physicians reported willingness to refer certain patients to other community vaccinators such as public clinics or pharmacies (79%); to collaborate with public health entities in holding community vaccination clinics (76%); and set up vaccination clinics with other practices (69%). The most frequently reported barriers to collaboration included concerns about record transfer (24%) and the time and effort collaboration would take (21%). Reporting loss of income (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.89) and losing opportunities to provide important medical services to patients with chronic medical conditions (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.25-2.78) were associated with unwillingness to refer patients outside of the practice for vaccination. LIMITATIONS Surveyed physicians may not be representative of all physicians. CONCLUSIONS The majority of physicians report willingness to collaborate with other community vaccinators to increase influenza vaccination rates although some will need assurance that collaboration will be financially feasible and will not compromise care. Successful collaboration will require reliable record transfer and must not be time consuming.

Vaccine Financing From the Perspective of Primary Care Physicians

OBJECTIVES: Because of high purchase costs of newer vaccines, financial risk to private vaccination providers has increased. We assessed among pediatricians and family physicians satisfaction with insurance payment for vaccine purchase and administration by payer type, the proportion who have considered discontinuing provision of all childhood vaccines for financial reasons, and strategies used for handling uncertainty about insurance coverage when new vaccines first become available. METHODS: A national survey among private pediatricians and family physicians April to September 2011. RESULTS: Response rates were 69% (190/277) for pediatricians and 70% (181/260) for family physicians. Level of dissatisfaction varied significantly by payer type for payment for vaccine administration (Medicaid, 63%; Children’s Health Insurance Program, 56%; managed care organizations, 48%; preferred provider organizations, 38%; fee for service, 37%; P < .001), but not for payment for vaccine purchase (health maintenance organization or managed care organization, 52%; Child Health Insurance Program, 47%; preferred provider organization, 45%; fee for service, 41%; P = .11). Ten percent of physicians had seriously considered discontinuing providing all childhood vaccines to privately insured patients because of cost issues. The most commonly used strategy for handling uncertainty about insurance coverage for new vaccines was to inform parents that they may be billed for the vaccine; 67% of physicians reported using 3 or more strategies to handle this uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Many primary care physicians are dissatisfied with payment for vaccine purchase and administration from third-party payers, particularly public insurance for vaccine administration. Physicians report a variety of strategies for dealing with the uncertainty of insurance coverage for new vaccines.

Physician Attitudes toward Adult Vaccines and other Preventive Practices, United States, 2012

Objectives. We described the following among U.S. primary care physicians: (1) perceived importance of vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices relative to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) preventive services, (2) attitudes toward the U.S. adult immunization schedule, and (3) awareness and use of Medicare preventive service visits. Methods. We conducted an Internet and mail survey from March to June 2012 among national networks of general internists and family physicians. Results. We received responses from 352 of 445 (79%) general internists and 255 of 409 (62%) family physicians. For a 67-year-old hypothetical patient, 540/606 (89%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 92) of physicians ranked seasonal influenza vaccine and 487/607 (80%, 95% CI 77, 83) ranked pneumococcal vaccine as very important, whereas 381/604 (63%, 95% CI 59, 67) ranked Tdap/Td vaccine and 288/607 (47%, 95% CI 43, 51) ranked herpes zoster vaccine as very important (p<0.001). All Grade A USPSTF recommendations were considered more important than Tdap/Td and herpes zoster vaccines. For the hypothetical patient aged 30 years, the number and percentage of physicians who reported that the Tdap/Td vaccine (377/604; 62%, 95% CI 59, 66) is very important was greater than the number and percentage who reported that the seasonal influenza vaccine (263/605; 43%, 95% CI 40, 47) is very important (p<0.001), and all Grade A and Grade B USPSTF recommendations were more often reported as very important than was any vaccine. A total of 172 of 587 physicians (29%) found aspects of the adult immunization schedule confusing. Among physicians aware of “Welcome to Medicare” and annual wellness visits, 492/514 (96%, 95% CI 94, 97) and 329/496 (66%, 95% CI 62, 70), respectively, reported having conducted fewer than 10 such visits in the previous month. Conclusions. Despite lack of prioritization of vaccines by ACIP, physicians are prioritizing some vaccines over others and ranking some vaccines below other preventive services. These attitudes and confusion about the immunization schedule may result in missed opportunities for vaccination. Medicare preventive visits are not being used widely despite offering a venue for delivery of preventive services, including vaccinations.

Clinical Characteristics and Antibiotic Utilization in Pediatric Patients Hospitalized with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infection

Background: Hospitalizations for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) in children are increasingly frequent, but little is known about antibiotic utilization. In adults, recent studies suggest substantial opportunity to reduce broad-spectrum antibiotic use and shorten therapy. We sought to determine whether similar opportunity exists in children. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of a pediatric cohort taken from a multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized for ABSSSI between June 1, 2010, and May 31, 2012. The prespecified primary endpoint was a composite of 2 prescribing practices: (1) use of antibiotics with broad Gram-negative activity or (2) treatment duration >10 days. Results: One-hundred and two patients ⩽18 years old were included: 43 had non-purulent cellulitis, 19 had wound infection or purulent cellulitis and 40 had cutaneous abscess. The median age was 5 years (range 45 days to 18 years). Clindamycin was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic during hospitalization (67% of cases) and at discharge (66% of cases). The median duration of therapy was 11 days (interquartile range 10–12) and was similar for all 3 types of ABSSSI. The primary endpoint occurred in 67% of cases, including broad Gram-negative therapy in 25% and treatment duration >10 days in 61%. By multivariate logistic regression, admission through an emergency department and management by a medical (vs. surgical) service were independently associated with the primary endpoint. Conclusions: Children hospitalized for ABSSSI are frequently exposed to antibiotics with broad Gram-negative activity or treated longer than 10 days suggesting opportunity to reduce antibiotic use.

Measles, the media, and MMR: Impact of the 2014–15 measles outbreak

OBJECTIVE In late 2014, a measles outbreak beginning in California received significant media attention. To better understand the impact of this outbreak, we conducted a survey to assess and compare among vaccine hesitant and non-hesitant new mothers how this outbreak affected vaccine knowledge, attitudes, vaccination plans, and media use. METHODS A cross-sectional email survey of English-speaking women with a child ⩽1year old using a convenience sample of women from nine obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) practices in Colorado assessed vaccine hesitancy, knowledge and attitudes about MMR vaccines and the outbreak, MMR vaccination plans before and after the outbreak, and use of and trust for media sources related to the outbreak. RESULTS The response rate was 50% (351/701). Knowledge about the outbreak was high and vaccination attitudes were mostly favorable. Forty-eight percent of respondents thought MMR vaccine was more important after the outbreak. Online news (76%), television news (75%), and social media (68%) were the most frequently used media sources, yet were highly trusted by only 18%, 22%, and 1% of respondents respectively. Government websites (34%) and information from a doctors office (34%) were infrequently used, but were highly trusted by 62% and 60% of respondents. Knowledge of the outbreak was lower among vaccine-hesitant respondents. Few mothers changed MMR vaccination plans after the outbreak. CONCLUSIONS New mothers had high levels of knowledge and favorable attitudes about vaccination after the 2014-15 measles outbreak. Media sources used the most are not the most trusted. Communication about outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases should include spread of accurate information to new media sources and strengthening of existing trust in traditional media.

Adherence to Expanded Influenza Immunization Recommendations among Primary Care Providers

OBJECTIVE To assess practices regarding the expanded Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for influenza vaccination in children among US pediatricians and family medicine physicians (FMs) and strategies to promote vaccination. STUDY DESIGN We administered a survey between July and October 2009 to 416 pediatricians and 424 FMs from nationally representative networks. RESULTS The response rate was 75% (79% pediatricians, 70% FMs). FMs were less likely than pediatricians to report adherence to ACIP recommendations (35% vs 65%; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72). Most physicians (89% pediatricians and 89% FMs) reported using posters or pamphlets to encourage influenza vaccination, and 57% pediatricians and 41% FMs reported offering after hours dedicated influenza vaccination clinics. Only 23% pediatricians and 14% FMs reported providing written, telephone, or e-mail reminders to all children. Having dedicated influenza vaccination clinics after hours or weekends was associated with routine vaccination of all children (adjusted RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.57). CONCLUSION In the first year of the expanded ACIP recommendations to immunize all eligible children against influenza, two-thirds of pediatricians and one-half of FMs reported adherence, although less than one-quarter were actively engaging in reminder/recall efforts. Practices that adhered to the ACIP recommendations were more likely to put a substantial effort into promoting vaccination opportunities.