Uncontrolled vaping and restraint strategies: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about uncontrolled vaping, defined as vaping more than the user prefers. We sought to understand e-cigarette users' experiences with uncontrolled vaping and how they restrain their vaping. METHODS: Participants were 24 US adult e-cigarette users recruited in 2021. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews about uncontrolled vaping and restraint strategies and analyzed findings based on behavioral categories described in the Process Model of Self-Control. RESULTS: While most participants (21 of 24) described experiences of uncontrolled vaping, some expressed ambivalence about how much they vaped. To restrain vaping, willpower was rarely used and was not perceived as effective. Distraction, deployment of attention away from the urge to vape, and reappraisal, thinking differently about vaping such as reminding oneself of health consequences, were common and helped some participants limit use in the moment of wanting to vape. Participants described using both situation selection, choosing to be in situations where e-cigarette use was less possible, and situation modification, modifying their circumstances to restrict opportunities to vape. DISCUSSION: Uncontrolled vaping is not yet a well-defined concept for many e-cigarette users. E-cigarette users employed proactive situational strategies that required planning ahead to restrain use and found these strategies more effective compared to reactive strategies. Tobacco control programs and interventions should consider leveraging restraint strategies that people who vape are naturally using and perceive to be effective.

Optimizing the Equitable Deployment of Virtual Care for Women: Protocol for a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Examining Patient and Provider Perspectives Supplemented with Primary Qualitative Data.

Introduction: Women experience numerous barriers to patient-centered health care (e.g., lack of continuity). Such barriers are amplified for women from marginalized communities. Virtual care may improve equitable access. We are conducting a partner-engaged, qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) of patients' and providers' experiences with virtual health care delivery for women. Methods: We use a best-fit framework approach informed by the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework and Public Health Critical Race Praxis. We will supplement published literature with qualitative interviews with women from underrepresented communities and their health care providers. We will engage patients and other contributors through multiple participatory methods. Results: Our search identified 5525 articles published from 2010 to 2022. Sixty were eligible, of which 42 focused on women and 24 on provider experiences. Data abstraction and analysis are ongoing. Discussion: This work offers four key innovations to advance health equity: (1) conceptual foundation rooted in an antiracist action-oriented praxis; (2) worked example of centering QES on marginalized communities; (3) supplementing QES with primary qualitative information with populations historically marginalized in the health care system; and (4) participatory approaches that foster longitudinal partnered engagement. Health Equity Implications: Our approach to exploring virtual health care for women demonstrates an antiracist praxis to inform knowledge generation. In doing so, we aim to generate findings that can guide health care systems in the equitable deployment of comprehensive virtual care for women.

Getting Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Back on Track: A National Survey.

PURPOSE: Adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in the United States dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic due to a decrease in well visits. This study sought to identify opportunities for primary care professionals (PCPs) to get adolescent vaccination back on track. METHODS: In early 2021, we recruited 1,047 PCPs (71% physicians) who provided adolescent vaccines in the United States from an existing panel. Participants completed an online survey about changes in adolescent HPV vaccine uptake and actions taken to promote vaccination during the pandemic, as well as intentions to engage in activities to increase adolescent vaccination in the next 3 months. RESULTS: A substantial proportion of PCPs (43%) reported that HPV vaccine uptake decreased in the first year of the pandemic; few (7%) PCPs reported an increase in uptake. PCPs reporting increased uptake were more likely to have used nurse-only vaccination visits, held drop-in and drive-through vaccination clinics, and used telehealth visits to recommend vaccination (all p < .05). Nearly two-thirds (62%) of all PCPs planned to promote adolescent vaccine uptake in the next 3 months. Planning was more common among PCPs who believed HPV vaccine uptake at their clinics increased during the pandemic, who saw more than 10 adolescent patients per week, who had ever reviewed their clinic's vaccination rates, and were nurses (all p < .05). DISCUSSION: Many PCPs saw HPV vaccination drop during the pandemic. Several interventions could help clinics get HPV vaccination back on track, including increasing the availability of nurse-only vaccination visits and vaccination-only clinics.

Coaching and Communication Training for HPV Vaccination: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: US health departments routinely conduct in-person quality improvement (QI) coaching to strengthen primary care clinics' vaccine delivery systems, but this intervention achieves only small, inconsistent improvements in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Thus, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of combining QI coaching with remote provider communication training to improve impact. METHODS: With health departments in 3 states, we conducted a pragmatic 4-arm cluster randomized clinical trial with 267 primary care clinics (76% pediatrics). Clinics received in-person QI coaching, remote provider communication training, both interventions combined, or control. Using data from states' immunization information systems, we assessed HPV vaccination among 176 189 patients, ages 11 to 17, who were unvaccinated at baseline. Our primary outcome was the proportion of those, ages 11 to 12, who had initiated HPV vaccination at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: HPV vaccine initiation was 1.5% points higher in the QI coaching arm and 3.8% points higher in the combined intervention arm than in the control arm, among patients ages 11 to 12, at 12-month follow-up (both P < .001). Improvements persisted at 18-month follow-up. The combined intervention also achieved improvements for other age groups (ages 13-17) and vaccination outcomes (series completion). Remote communication training alone did not outperform the control on any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Combining QI coaching with remote provider communication training yielded more consistent improvements in HPV vaccination uptake than QI coaching alone. Health departments and other organizations that seek to support HPV vaccine delivery may benefit from a higher intensity, multilevel intervention approach.

Implementation of quality improvement coaching versus physician communication training for improving human papillomavirus vaccination in primary care: a randomized implementation trial.

Many US health departments (HDs) conduct in-person quality improvement (QI) coaching to help primary care clinics improve their HPV vaccine delivery systems and communication. Some HDs additionally conduct remote communication training to help vaccine prescribers recommend HPV vaccination more effectively. Our aim was to compare QI coaching and communication training on key implementation outcomes. In a cluster randomized trial, we offered 855 primary care clinics: 1) QI coaching; 2) communication training; or 3) both interventions combined. In each trial arm, we assessed adoption (proportion of clinics receiving the intervention), contacts per clinic (mean number of contacts needed for one clinic to adopt intervention), reach (median number of participants per clinic), and delivery cost (mean cost per clinic) from the HD perspective. More clinics adopted QI coaching than communication training or the combined intervention (63% vs 16% and 12%, both p < .05). QI coaching required fewer contacts per clinic than communication training or the combined intervention (mean = 4.7 vs 29.0 and 40.4, both p < .05). Communication training and the combined intervention reached more total staff per clinic than QI coaching (median= 5 and 5 vs 2, both p < .05), including more prescribers (2 and 2 vs 0, both p < .05). QI coaching cost $439 per adopting clinic on average, including follow up ($129/clinic), preparation ($73/clinic), and travel ($69/clinic). Communication training cost $1,287 per adopting clinic, with most cost incurred from recruitment ($653/clinic). QI coaching was lower cost and had higher adoption, but communication training achieved higher reach, including to influential vaccine prescribers.

Our cluster randomized trial compared two interventions that health departments commonly use to increase HPV vaccination coverage: quality improvement (QI) coaching and physician communication training. We found that QI coaching cost less and was more often adopted by primary care clinics, but communication training reached more staff members per clinic, including vaccine prescribers. Findings provide health departments with data needed to weigh the implementation strengths and challenges of QI coaching and physician communication training for increasing HPV vaccination coverage.

HPV vaccine communication training in healthcare systems: Evaluating a train-the-trainer model.

BACKGROUND: Large healthcare systems provide an opportunity to disseminate evidence-based interventions to primary care. We evaluated the impact of a train-the-trainer model in two large systems to disseminate the Announcement Approach Training, which teaches providers to communicate about HPV vaccination more effectively. METHODS: In collaboration with the American Cancer Society, we partnered with two midwestern healthcare systems that served over 77,000 patients ages 11 through 17. Both systems hosted a 2-hour train-the-trainer workshop. Providers from one system then conducted in-person 1-hour CME-eligible trainings, using our standard slide set and script (available at hpvIQ.org). The other system did not implement trainings, providing a natural experiment. RESULTS: The train-the-trainer workshop included physicians, nurses and other clinical staff (n = 11/13 for intervention/comparison systems). The intervention system delivered 18 trainings to 234 physicians, nurses, and other clinic staff. From baseline to 6-month follow-up, the intervention system had an increase in HPV vaccine uptake that was larger than that of the comparison system for adolescents ages 11 through 12 (1.9%, p = .002) and ages 13 through 17 (1.5%, p = .015). Attending the training was associated with increased intentions to routinely recommend HPV vaccine when patients turn 11 or 12 (mean 4.19 (SD = 0.95) vs. 4.43 (SD = 0.83) as well as increased positive vaccine attitudes, self-efficacy, and norms (all p < .001). Participant satisfaction with the trainings was high (90%-94%). CONCLUSION: The train-the-trainer model was effective in increasing provider motivation to recommend HPV vaccination and led to a small increase in vaccine uptake. Dissemination through large healthcare systems is promising but faces some challenges.

Talking about recommended age or fewer doses: what motivates HPV vaccination timeliness?

HPV vaccination is recommended for U.S. adolescents at ages 11-12 and requires two versus three doses if the series is started before age 15. We evaluated how talking about recommended age or fewer doses motivates on-time HPV vaccination. Our national, online experiment randomized 1,263 parents of adolescents to view one of three messages about HPV vaccination recommendations or no message. Messages framed guidelines as recommending: vaccination at age 11-12; fewer doses for those who start vaccination at age 11-12; or, fewer doses for those who start vaccination before age 15. We then assessed parents' preferred age for HPV vaccination, categorizing preferences of ≤12 years as on-time. Parents who viewed "at age 11-12" versus no message more often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (63% vs. 43%, p < .05) and did not differ from those viewing "fewer doses at age 11-12" (63% vs. 64%, p > .05). Parents who viewed "fewer doses before age 15" less often preferred on-time HPV vaccination (39%, p < .05). Recommending HPV vaccination at age 11-12 encouraged on-time vaccination, while offering fewer doses had little impact. Providers should avoid framing HPV vaccination guidelines in reference to age 15 because doing so may discourage on-time vaccination by introducing confusion about the recommended age.

Questions and Concerns About HPV Vaccine: A Communication Experiment.

: media-1vid110.1542/5972295740001PEDS-VA_2018-1872Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify effective responses to parents' questions and concerns about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. METHODS: In 2017-2018, we surveyed a national sample of 1196 US parents of children aged 9 to 17 years. We recorded brief videos of a pediatrician providing messages that addressed 7 HPV vaccination topics that commonly elicit questions or concerns (eg, recommended age). We randomly assigned parents to 1 of the message topics; parents then viewed 4 videos on that topic in random order and evaluated the messages. RESULTS: Parents were more confident in HPV vaccine when they were exposed to messages that addressed lack of knowledge about HPV vaccine (b = 0.13; P = .01), messages that included information about cancer prevention (b = 0.11; P < .001), messages that required a higher reading level (b = 0.02; P = .01), and messages that were longer (b = 0.03; P < .001). Parents were less confident in HPV vaccine when exposed to messages in which urgency was expressed (b = -0.06; P = .005). Analyses conducted by using HPV vaccine motivation as an outcome revealed the same pattern of findings. CONCLUSIONS: We provide research-tested messages that providers can use to address parents' HPV vaccination questions and concerns about 7 common topics. Important principles for increasing message effectiveness are to include information on the benefits of vaccination (including cancer prevention) and avoid expressing urgency to vaccinate when addressing parents' questions or concerns. Additionally, providers may need to be prepared to have longer conversations with parents who express concerns about HPV vaccine, especially regarding safety and side effects.