TY - JOUR
T1 - Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines
AU - Moss, Jennifer L.
AU - Reiter, Paul L.
AU - Rimer, Barbara K.
AU - Brewer, Noel T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd.
PY - 2016/6/1
Y1 - 2016/6/1
N2 - Rationale: Recommendations from healthcare providers are one of the most consistent correlates of adolescent vaccination, but few studies have investigated other elements of patient-provider communication and their relevance to uptake. Objective: We examined competing hypotheses about the relationship of patient-driven versus provider-driven communication styles with vaccination. Methods: We gathered information about vaccine uptake from healthcare provider-verified data in the 2010 National Immunization Survey-Teen for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster, meningococcal vaccine, and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (initiation among females) for adolescents ages 13-17. We categorized communication style in parents' conversations with healthcare providers about vaccines, based on parents' reports (of whether a provider recommended a vaccine and, if so, if conversations were informed, shared, or efficient) (N = 9021). Results: Most parents reported either no provider recommendation (Tdap booster: 35%; meningococcal vaccine: 46%; and HPV vaccine: 31%) or reported a provider recommendation and shared patient-provider communication (43%, 38%, and 49%, respectively). Provider recommendations were associated with increased odds of vaccination (all ps < 0.001). In addition, more provider-driven communication styles were associated with higher rates of uptake for meningococcal vaccine (efficient style: 82% vs. shared style: 77% vs. informed style: 68%; p < 0.001 for shared vs. informed) and HPV vaccine (efficient style: 90% vs. shared style: 70% vs. informed style: 33%; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Efficient communication styles were used rarely (≤2% across vaccines) but were highly effective for encouraging meningococcal and HPV vaccination. Intervention studies are needed to confirm that efficient communication approaches increase HPV vaccination among adolescents.
AB - Rationale: Recommendations from healthcare providers are one of the most consistent correlates of adolescent vaccination, but few studies have investigated other elements of patient-provider communication and their relevance to uptake. Objective: We examined competing hypotheses about the relationship of patient-driven versus provider-driven communication styles with vaccination. Methods: We gathered information about vaccine uptake from healthcare provider-verified data in the 2010 National Immunization Survey-Teen for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster, meningococcal vaccine, and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (initiation among females) for adolescents ages 13-17. We categorized communication style in parents' conversations with healthcare providers about vaccines, based on parents' reports (of whether a provider recommended a vaccine and, if so, if conversations were informed, shared, or efficient) (N = 9021). Results: Most parents reported either no provider recommendation (Tdap booster: 35%; meningococcal vaccine: 46%; and HPV vaccine: 31%) or reported a provider recommendation and shared patient-provider communication (43%, 38%, and 49%, respectively). Provider recommendations were associated with increased odds of vaccination (all ps < 0.001). In addition, more provider-driven communication styles were associated with higher rates of uptake for meningococcal vaccine (efficient style: 82% vs. shared style: 77% vs. informed style: 68%; p < 0.001 for shared vs. informed) and HPV vaccine (efficient style: 90% vs. shared style: 70% vs. informed style: 33%; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Efficient communication styles were used rarely (≤2% across vaccines) but were highly effective for encouraging meningococcal and HPV vaccination. Intervention studies are needed to confirm that efficient communication approaches increase HPV vaccination among adolescents.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84966455298&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84966455298&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.030
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 27176467
AN - SCOPUS:84966455298
SN - 0277-9536
VL - 159
SP - 100
EP - 107
JO - Social Science and Medicine
JF - Social Science and Medicine
ER -