TY - JOUR
T1 - Physician communication about adolescent vaccination
T2 - How is human papillomavirus vaccine different?
AU - Gilkey, Melissa B.
AU - Moss, Jennifer L.
AU - Coyne-Beasley, Tamera
AU - Hall, Megan E.
AU - Shah, Parth D.
AU - Brewer, Noel T.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded via an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer ( #8970803 ). Authors' time was supported by the Cancer Control Education Program at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center ( R25 CA57726 ), a career development award from the National Cancer Institute ( K22 CA186979 ), and a predoctoral fellowship from the National Cancer Institute ( F31 CA189411 ). Funders played no role in: 1) study design; 2) the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; 3) the writing of the report; or 4) the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Funding Information:
NB has received HPV vaccine-related grants from or been on paid advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Pfizer; he served on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee Working Group on HPV Vaccine and is chair of the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable. TCB has received HPV vaccine-related grants from Merck. The remaining authors (MG, JM, MH, and PS) have no conflicts of interest to report.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2015/8/1
Y1 - 2015/8/1
N2 - Background: Low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage stands in stark contrast to our success in delivering other adolescent vaccines. To identify opportunities for improving physicians' recommendations for HPV vaccination, we sought to understand how the communication context surrounding adolescent vaccination varies by vaccine type. Methods: A national sample of 776 U.S. physicians (53% pediatricians, 47% family medicine physicians) completed our online survey in 2014. We assessed physicians' perceptions and communication practices related to recommending adolescent vaccines for 11- and 12-year-old patients. Results: About three-quarters of physicians (73%) reported recommending HPV vaccine as highly important for patients, ages 11-12. More physicians recommended tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) (95%) and meningococcal vaccines (87%, both p<. 0.001) as highly important for this age group. Only 13% of physicians perceived HPV vaccine as being highly important to parents, which was far fewer than perceived parental support for Tdap (74%) and meningococcal vaccines (62%, both p<. 0.001). Physicians reported that discussing HPV vaccine took almost twice as long as discussing Tdap. Among physicians with a preferred order for discussing adolescent vaccines, most (70%) discussed HPV vaccine last. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that primary care physicians perceived HPV vaccine discussions to be burdensome, requiring more time and engendering less parental support than other adolescent vaccines. Perhaps for this reason, physicians in our national study recommended HPV vaccine less strongly than other adolescent vaccines, and often chose to discuss it last. Communication strategies are needed to support physicians in recommending HPV vaccine with greater confidence and efficiency.
AB - Background: Low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage stands in stark contrast to our success in delivering other adolescent vaccines. To identify opportunities for improving physicians' recommendations for HPV vaccination, we sought to understand how the communication context surrounding adolescent vaccination varies by vaccine type. Methods: A national sample of 776 U.S. physicians (53% pediatricians, 47% family medicine physicians) completed our online survey in 2014. We assessed physicians' perceptions and communication practices related to recommending adolescent vaccines for 11- and 12-year-old patients. Results: About three-quarters of physicians (73%) reported recommending HPV vaccine as highly important for patients, ages 11-12. More physicians recommended tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) (95%) and meningococcal vaccines (87%, both p<. 0.001) as highly important for this age group. Only 13% of physicians perceived HPV vaccine as being highly important to parents, which was far fewer than perceived parental support for Tdap (74%) and meningococcal vaccines (62%, both p<. 0.001). Physicians reported that discussing HPV vaccine took almost twice as long as discussing Tdap. Among physicians with a preferred order for discussing adolescent vaccines, most (70%) discussed HPV vaccine last. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that primary care physicians perceived HPV vaccine discussions to be burdensome, requiring more time and engendering less parental support than other adolescent vaccines. Perhaps for this reason, physicians in our national study recommended HPV vaccine less strongly than other adolescent vaccines, and often chose to discuss it last. Communication strategies are needed to support physicians in recommending HPV vaccine with greater confidence and efficiency.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84935837658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84935837658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.05.024
DO - 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.05.024
M3 - Article
C2 - 26051197
AN - SCOPUS:84935837658
SN - 0091-7435
VL - 77
SP - 181
EP - 185
JO - Preventive Medicine
JF - Preventive Medicine
ER -