Health Care Provider Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Adult Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Recommendations - United States, September 28-October 10, 2022.

Despite the availability of effective vaccines against pneumococcal disease, pneumococcus is a common bacterial cause of pneumonia, causing approximately 100,000 hospitalizations among U.S. adults per year. In addition, approximately 30,000 invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) cases and 3,000 IPD deaths occur among U.S. adults each year. Previous health care provider surveys identified gaps in provider knowledge about and understanding of the adult pneumococcal vaccine recommendations, and pneumococcal vaccine coverage remains suboptimal. To assess the feasibility and acceptability domains of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) framework, a health care provider knowledge and attitudes survey was conducted during September 28-October 10, 2022, by the Healthcare and Public Perceptions of Immunizations Survey Collaborative before the October 2022 ACIP meeting. Among 751 provider respondents, two thirds agreed or strongly agreed with the policy option under consideration to expand the recommendations for the new 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) to adults who had only received the previously recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13). Gaps in providers' knowledge and perceived challenges to implementing recommendations were identified and were included in ACIP's EtR framework discussions in late October 2022 when ACIP updated the recommendations for PCV20 use in adults. Currently, use of PCV20 is recommended for certain adults who have previously received PCV13, in addition to those who have never received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. The survey findings indicate a need to increase provider awareness and implementation of pneumococcal vaccination recommendations and to provide tools to assist with patient-specific vaccination guidance. Resources available to address the challenges to implementing pneumococcal vaccination recommendations include the PneumoRecs VaxAdvisor mobile app and other CDC-developed tools, including summary documents and overviews of vaccination schedules and CDC's strategic framework to increase confidence in vaccines and reduce vaccine-preventable diseases, Vaccinate with Confidence.

Vaccination Practices Among Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Non-pregnant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Many non-pregnant women see obstetrician-gynecologists as their sole source of medical care, yet little is known about vaccination practices of obstetrician-gynecologists for non-pregnant patients. The objectives were to assess, among a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists, practices related to vaccine delivery in non-pregnant patients and factors associated with stocking and administering more than three different vaccines to non-pregnant patients. METHODS: E-mail and mail surveys were administered July-October 2015, with analyses performed during October-November 2015 and April-June 2018. RESULTS: The response rate was 73% (353/482). Human papillomavirus (92%); influenza (82%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines (50%) were the vaccines most commonly assessed, with the remaining vaccines assessed by <40% of respondents. Vaccines most commonly administered by obstetrician-gynecologists to non-pregnant patients included human papillomavirus (81%); influenza (70%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (54%). The remaining vaccines were administered by <30% of obstetrician-gynecologists. Factors associated with routinely administering more than three vaccines to non-pregnant patients included working in a hospital-, public health-, or university-associated clinic (RR=1.87, 95% CI=1.35, 2.58, referent to private practice); a larger practice (more than five providers; RR=1.54, 95% CI=1.05, 2.27); perceiving fewer financial barriers (RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.57, 0.96); fewer practice-associated barriers (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.55, 0.92); and greater patient barriers (RR=1.62, 95% CI=1.33, 1.98). CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus; influenza; and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines are the only vaccines routinely assessed and administered to non-pregnant patients by most obstetrician-gynecologists. Given their role as the sole source of care for many women, obstetrician-gynecologists could make a positive impact on the vaccination status of their non-pregnant patients.

Disparities in Tdap Vaccination and Vaccine Information Needs Among Pregnant Women in the United States.

Objectives The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that pregnant women receive the Tdap vaccine during every pregnancy. The objectives of this paper are to evaluate disparities in Tdap vaccination among pregnant women in the U.S., and to assess whether race/ethnicity and other characteristics are associated with factors that inform pregnant women's decisions about Tdap vaccination. Methods We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional web-based survey of pregnant women in the U.S. during June-July 2014. The primary outcome was self-reported vaccination status with Tdap during pregnancy, categorized as vaccinated, unvaccinated with intent to be vaccinated during the current pregnancy, and unvaccinated with no intent to be vaccinated during the current pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included factors that influenced women's decisions about vaccination and information needs. We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios for associations between race/ethnicity and the outcomes. Results Among pregnant women who completed the survey, 41% (95% CI 36-45%) reported that they had received Tdap during the current pregnancy. Among those women in the third trimester at the time of survey, 52% (95% CI 43-60%) had received Tdap during the current pregnancy. Hispanic women had higher Tdap vaccination than white women and black women (53%, p < 0.05, compared with 38 and 36%, respectively). In logistic regression models adjusting for maternal age, geographic region, education, and income, Hispanic women were more likely to have been vaccinated with Tdap compared with white women (aOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.20-4.37). Higher income and residing in the western U.S. were also independently associated with Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. Twenty-six percent of surveyed women had not been vaccinated with Tdap yet but intended to receive the vaccine during the current pregnancy; this proportion did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity. The most common factor that influenced women to get vaccinated was a health care provider (HCP) recommendation. The most common reason for not getting vaccinated was a concern about safety of the vaccine. Conclusions This study found that some disparities exist in Tdap vaccination among pregnant women in the U.S., and HCPs have an important role in providing information and recommendations about the maternal Tdap recommendation to pregnant women so they can make informed vaccination decisions.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Strategies to Address Vaccine Refusal Among Pregnant Women.

OBJECTIVE: To describe 1) obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') perceptions of the frequency of vaccine refusal among pregnant patients and perceived reasons for refusal and 2) ob-gyns' strategies used when encountering vaccine refusal and perceived effectiveness of those strategies. METHODS: We conducted an email and mail survey among a nationally representative network of ob-gyns from March 2016 to June 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 69% (331/477). Health care providers perceived that pregnant women more commonly refused influenza vaccine than tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine: 62% of respondents reported 10% or greater of pregnant women they care for in a typical month refused influenza vaccine compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine. The most commonly reported reasons for vaccine refusal were patients' belief that influenza vaccine makes them sick (48%), belief they are unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease (38%), general worries about vaccines (32%), desire to maintain a natural pregnancy (31%), and concern that their child could develop autism as a result of maternal vaccination (25%). The most commonly reported strategies ob-gyns used to address refusal were stating that it is safe to receive vaccines in pregnancy (96%), explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk (90%), or that not getting the vaccine puts the pregnant woman's health at risk (84%). The strategy perceived as most effective was stating that not getting vaccinated puts the fetus or newborn at risk. CONCLUSION: Ob-gyns perceive vaccine refusal among pregnant women as common and refusal of influenza vaccine as more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine. Emphasizing the risk of disease to the fetus or newborn may be an effective strategy to increase vaccine uptake.

Adoption of Serogroup B Meningococcal Vaccine Recommendations.

: media-1vid110.1542/5799875076001PEDS-VA_2018-0344Video Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that 16- to 23-year-olds may be vaccinated with the serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine on the basis of individual clinical decision-making (Category B). We assessed the following among US pediatricians and family physicians (FPs): (1) practices regarding MenB vaccine delivery, (2) factors influencing a decision to recommend the MenB vaccine, and (3) factors associated with discussing the MenB vaccine. METHODS: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and FPs via e-mail and Internet from October 2016 to December 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). During routine visits, 51% of pediatricians and 31% of FPs reported always or often discussing MenB vaccine. Among those who discussed often or always, 91% recommended vaccination; among those who never or rarely discussed, 11% recommended. We found that 73% of pediatricians and 41% of FPs currently administered the MenB vaccine. Although many providers reported not knowing about factors influencing recommendation decisions, MenB disease outbreaks (89%), disease incidence (62%), and effectiveness (52%), safety (48%), and duration of protection of MenB vaccine (39%) increased the likelihood of recommendation, whereas the Category B recommendation (45%) decreased likelihood. Those somewhat or not at all aware of the MenB vaccine (risk ratio 0.32 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.41]) and those practicing in a health maintenance organization (0.39 [0.18-0.87]) were less likely, whereas those aware of disease outbreaks in their state (1.25 [1.08-1.45]) were more likely to discuss MenB vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians have significant gaps in knowledge about MenB disease and the MenB vaccine, and this appears to be a major driver of the decision not to discuss the vaccines.

Provider insight on surmounting specialty practice challenges to improve Tdap immunization rates among pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis, or "whooping cough," is an acute, contagious pulmonary disease that, despite being vaccine-preventable, has become an increasingly widespread problem in the United States. As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated recommendations stating clinicians should give a Tdap dose during every pregnancy, preferably at 27-36 weeks. Despite this recommendation, reported Tdap vaccine receipt rates during pregnancy vary from 16-61%, and previous studies have shown that clinician recommendation and vaccine administration are strongly associated with vaccine uptake among pregnant women. METHODS: Our aim was to inform new strategies to increase uptake of the Tdap vaccine among pregnant women and, ultimately, reduce pertussis-related morbidity and mortality in infants. We conducted interviews with a sample of 24 ob-gyns. We subsequently performed grounded theory analyses of transcripts using deductive and inductive coding strategies followed by intercoder reliability assessment. RESULTS: All physicians interviewed were familiar with the most recent recommendation of giving the Tdap vaccine during the third trimester of every pregnancy, and the majority of physicians stated that they felt that the vaccine was important and effective due to the transfer of pertussis antibodies from the mother to the fetus. Most physicians indicated that they recommended the vaccine to patients during pregnancy, but not all reported administering it on site because it was not stocked at their practice. Implementation challenges for physicians included insurance reimbursement and other challenges (i.e., patient refusal). Tdap vaccination during pregnancy was a lower clinical priority for some physicians. Physicians recognized the benefits associated with Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate while most ob-gyns recognize the benefits of Tdap and recommend vaccination during pregnancy, barriers such as insurance reimbursement and financial concerns for the practice can outweigh the perceived benefits. This resulted in some ob-gyns reporting choosing not to stock and administer the vaccine in their practice. Recommendations to address these concerns include 1) structural support for Tdap vaccine administration in ob-gyns practices; 2) Continuing medical education-equivalent educational interventions that address management techniques, vaccine coding, and other relevant information; and 3) interventions to assist physicians in communicating the importance of Tdap vaccination during pregnancy.

Lessons Learned in Clinical Trial Communication During an Ebola Outbreak: The Implementation of STRIVE.

Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02378753] and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry [PACTR201502001037220].

Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Category B ACIP Recommendations Among Primary Care Providers for Children.

OBJECTIVE: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made a category B recommendation for use of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines, meaning individual clinical decision-making should guide recommendations. This was the first use of a category B recommendation pertaining to a large population and the first such recommendation for adolescents. As part of a survey regarding MenB vaccine, our objectives were to assess among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs) nationally: 1) knowledge of the meaning of category A versus B recommendations and insurance coverage implications, and 2) attitudes about category A and B recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of Peds and FPs via e-mail and mail from October to December 2016. RESULTS: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). Although >80% correctly identified the definition of a category A recommendation, only 24% were correct about the definition for category B. Fifty-five percent did not know that private insurance would pay for vaccines recommended as category B, and 51% did not know that category B-recommended vaccines would be covered by the Vaccines for Children program. Fifty-nine percent found it difficult to explain category B recommendations to patients; 22% thought ACIP should not make category B recommendations; and 39% were in favor of category B recommendations because they provide leeway in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: For category B recommendations to be useful in guiding practice, primary care clinicians will need to have a better understanding of their meaning, their implications for insurance payment, and guidance on how to discuss them with parents and patients.

Immunization Practices of U.S. Obstetrician/Gynecologists for Pregnant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: U.S. obstetrician/gynecologists play a critical role as vaccinators of pregnant women. However, little is known about their current immunization practices. Thus, study objectives were to determine (1) practices related to assessment of vaccination status and vaccine delivery for pregnant patients; (2) barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; and (3) factors associated with administering both influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines. METHODS: An e-mail and mail survey among a national sample of obstetrician/gynecologists conducted July-October 2015 (analysis August 2016-August 2017). RESULTS: The response rate was 73.2% (353/482). Among obstetrician/gynecologists caring for pregnant women (n=324), vaccination status was most commonly assessed for influenza (97%), Tdap (92%), and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (88%). Vaccines most commonly administered included influenza (85%) and Tdap (76%). Few respondents reported administering other vaccines to pregnant patients. More physicians reported using standing orders for influenza (66%) than Tdap (39%). Other evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccine uptake were less frequently used (electronic decision support, 42%; immunization information system to record [13%] or assess vaccination status [11%]; reminder/recall, 7%). Barriers most commonly reported were provider financial barriers, yet provider attitudinal barriers were rare. Providers who administered both influenza and Tdap vaccines were more likely to be female, perceive fewer financial and practice barriers, less likely to be in private practice, and perceive more patient barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Although most obstetrician/gynecologists administer some vaccines to pregnant women, the focus remains on influenza and Tdap. Financial barriers and infrequent use of evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccination uptake may be hindering delivery of a broader complement of adult vaccines in obstetrician/gynecologist offices.

Implementing an Ebola Vaccine Study - Sierra Leone.

In October 2014, the College of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences of the University of Sierra Leone, the Sierra Leone Ministry of Health and Sanitation, and CDC joined the global effort to accelerate assessment and availability of candidate Ebola vaccines and began planning for the Sierra Leone Trial to Introduce a Vaccine against Ebola (STRIVE). STRIVE was an individually randomized controlled phase II/III trial to evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus Ebola vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV). The study population was health care and frontline workers in select chiefdoms of the five most affected districts in Sierra Leone. Participants were randomized to receive a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV at enrollment or to receive a single intramuscular dose 18-24 weeks after enrollment. All participants were followed up monthly until 6 months after vaccination. Two substudies separately assessed detailed reactogenicity over 1 month and immunogenicity over 12 months. During the 5 months before the trial, STRIVE and partners built a research platform in Sierra Leone comprising participant follow-up sites, cold chain, reliable power supply, and vaccination clinics and hired and trained at least 350 national staff. Wide-ranging community outreach, informational sessions, and messaging were conducted before and during the trial to ensure full communication to the population of the study area regarding procedures and current knowledge about the trial vaccine. During April 9-August 15, 2015, STRIVE enrolled 8,673 participants, of whom 453 and 539 were also enrolled in the safety and immunogenicity substudies, respectively. As of April 28, 2016, no Ebola cases and no vaccine-related serious adverse events, which by regulatory definition include death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or permanent disability, were reported in the study population. Although STRIVE will not produce an estimate of vaccine efficacy because of low case frequency as the epidemic was controlled, data on safety and immunogenicity will support decisions on licensure of rVSV-ZEBOV.The activities summarized in this report would not have been possible without collaboration with many U.S. and international partners (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/partners.html).

Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Antibiotic Use Among Adult Consumers, Adult Hispanic Consumers, and Health Care Providers--United States, 2012-2013.

Appropriate antibiotic use, in particular avoidance of antibiotics for upper respiratory infections likely to be caused by viruses, is a key component of efforts to slow the increase in antibiotic-resistant infections. Studies suggest that Hispanic consumers might differ from non-Hispanic consumers in their knowledge and attitudes regarding antibiotic use (4). To better understand health care provider and consumer knowledge and attitudes that influence antibiotic use, CDC analyzed national internet survey data collected from participants living in the United States during 2012-2013. The participants represented three groups: 1) the total population of adult consumers (all ethnicities); 2) adult Hispanic consumers; and 3) health care providers. Hispanic consumers were more likely than all consumers to believe that if they have a cold, antibiotics would help them to get better more quickly (48% versus 25%), and more likely to obtain antibiotics not prescribed by a clinician, such as antibiotics left over from a previous illness (25% versus 9%), obtained from a neighborhood grocery store (23% versus 5%), or obtained from a friend or family member (17% versus 6%). Most providers surveyed (54%) reported that they believed their patients expect antibiotics during visits for a cough or cold, whereas 26% of all consumers reported this expectation. To maximize knowledge about appropriate antibiotic use among outpatients in the United States, public health initiatives should target Hispanic as well as general audiences.

Can Improving Knowledge of Antibiotic-Associated Adverse Drug Events Reduce Parent and Patient Demand for Antibiotics?

BACKGROUND: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 2 million people are infected and 23,000 die each year in the United States as a result of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Antibiotic use is the most important factor contributing to antibiotic resistance and overuse is common, especially for upper respiratory tract infections. There is a perception among the public, as well as some health care providers, that antibiotics are harmless. We conducted formative research to explore patient and parent knowledge and attitudes relating to antibiotic use and adverse drug events (ADEs). METHODS: Six computer-assisted telephone focus groups were conducted in October and November 2010 with adult patients and mothers of young children. The focus groups were developed to engage participants in discussion about their knowledge and attitudes regarding antibiotic resistance and ADEs associated with antibiotic use. RESULTS: Nearly all mothers were familiar with the possibility of "side effects" with prescription medications, including antibiotics. However, very few mothers were familiar with severe antibiotic-associated ADEs and nearly all felt strongly that this information should be shared with parents at the time a prescription is recommended or written for their child. Adult participants did not believe that the potential for ADEs was a significant issue for adults and most reported never discussing the potential for adverse events with their provider. CONCLUSIONS: Parents were receptive to appropriate antibiotic use messaging around ADEs. We learned that ADE messages did not resonate with adults in the same way they did with mothers of young children.

Effects of knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary care providers on antibiotic selection, United States.

Appropriate selection of antibiotic drugs is critical to optimize treatment of infections and limit the spread of antibiotic resistance. To better inform public health efforts to improve prescribing of antibiotic drugs, we conducted in-depth interviews with 36 primary care providers in the United States (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) to explore knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices regarding antibiotic drug resistance and antibiotic drug selection for common infections. Participants were generally familiar with guideline recommendations for antibiotic drug selection for common infections, but did not always comply with them. Reasons for nonadherence included the belief that nonrecommended agents are more likely to cure an infection, concern for patient or parent satisfaction, and fear of infectious complications. Providers inconsistently defined broad- and narrow-spectrum antibiotic agents. There was widespread concern for antibiotic resistance; however, it was not commonly considered when selecting therapy. Strategies to encourage use of first-line agents are needed in addition to limiting unnecessary prescribing of antibiotic drugs.