MomsTalkShots, tailored educational app, improves vaccine attitudes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women and parents have concerns about vaccines. This analysis examined the impact of MomsTalkShots, an individually tailored educational application, on vaccine attitudes of pregnant women and mothers. METHODS: MomsTalkShots was the patient-level component of a multi-level intervention to improve maternal and infant vaccine uptake that also included provider- and practice-level interventions. The impact of these interventions was studied using a two-by-two factorial design, randomizing at both the patient- and the practice-level. Study staff recruited pregnant women from a diverse set of prenatal care practices in Colorado and Georgia between June 2017 and July 2018. All participants (n = 2087) received a baseline survey of maternal and infant vaccine intentions and attitudes, and two follow-up surveys at least 1 month and 1 year after their infant's birth, respectively. Half of participants (n = 1041) were randomly assigned to receive educational videos through MomsTalkShots, algorithmically tailored to their vaccine intentions, attitudes, and demographics. Since the practice/provider intervention did not appear impactful, this analysis focused on MomsTalkShots regardless of the practice/provider intervention. RESULTS: By 1 month post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (61% among MomsTalkShots recipients vs 55% among controls; Odds Ratio: 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.23-2.09), confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (73% vs 63%; OR: 1.97, 95%CI: 1.47-2.65), and perceived vaccine knowledge (55% vs 48%; OR: 1.39, 95%CI: 1.13-1.72). Among those intending not to vaccinate at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived risk of maternal influenza disease (38% vs 32%; OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.15-3.71) and confidence in influenza vaccine efficacy (44% vs 28%; OR: 2.62, 95%CI: 1.46-4.69). By 1 year post-birth, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (62% vs 50%; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36-2.24) and trust in vaccine information from obstetricians and pediatricians (64% vs 55%; OR: 1.53, 95%CI: 1.17-2.00). Among those uncertain about vaccinating at baseline, MomsTalkShots increased perceived vaccine knowledge (47% vs 12%; OR: 6.89, 95%CI: 1.52-31.25) and reduced infant vaccine safety concerns (71% vs 91%; OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.06-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: MomsTalkShots improved pregnant women's and mothers' knowledge and perceptions of maternal and infant vaccines and the diseases they prevent, and offers a scalable tool to address vaccine hesitancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov on 13/09/2016 (registration number: NCT02898688).

Learning from maternal voices on COVID-19 vaccine uptake: Perspectives from pregnant women living in the Midwest on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine.

The aim of this study was to understand COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and decision-making among a racially/ethnically diverse population of pregnant and lactating women in the Midwest. Pregnant female participants (N = 27) at least 18 years. or older living in the Midwest were recruited to participate in a maternal voices survey. A mix-methods approach was used to capture the perceptions of maternal voices concerning the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants completed an online survey on COVID-19 disease burden, vaccine knowledge, and readiness for uptake. A total of 27 participants completed the Birth Equity Network Maternal Voices survey. Most participants were African American (64%). Sixty-three percent intend to get the vaccine. Only 25% felt at-risk for contracting COVID-19, and 74% plan to consult their provider about getting the COVID-19 vaccine. At least 66% had some concerns about the safety of the vaccine. Participants indicated a willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if recommended by their provider. We found little racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of COVID-19 and low vaccine hesitancy.

Human Papillomavirus Genotypes From Vaginal and Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Females 15-26 Years of Age.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of vulvar and vaginal low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs and HSILs) in females 15-26 years of age attributable to 14 human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59). METHODS: A post hoc analysis of prospectively diagnosed vulvar and vaginal LSILs and HSILs among females 15-26 years of age enrolled in the placebo arms of two phase 3, randomized HPV vaccine trials assessed 14 prespecified HPV genotypes associated with cervical cancers or anogenital warts using a type-specific multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay. The frequency of lesions associated with specific HPV genotypes was estimated by proportional and other attribution methods. RESULTS: During approximately 4 years of follow-up in 8,798 females, 40 vulvar LSILs and 46 vulvar HSILs were diagnosed in 68 females, and 118 vaginal LSILs and 33 vaginal HSILs were diagnosed in 107 females. Females developing vulvar (41.2%) or vaginal (49.5%) lesions also had cervical lesions, whereas 6.5% of females with cervical lesions had vaginal or vulvar lesions. At least 1 of the 14 HPV genotypes was detected in females with vulvar LSIL (72.5%), vulvar HSIL (91.3%), vaginal LSIL (61.9%), and vaginal HSIL (72.7%). Considering only HPV-positive lesions, the nine most common genotypes causing cervical cancer and anogenital warts (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) were found in 89.4% of vulvar LSILs, 100% of vulvar HSILs, 56.0% of vaginal LSILs, and 78.3% of vaginal HSILs. CONCLUSION: Most vulvar and vaginal lesions were attributable to at least 1 of the 14 HPV genotypes analyzed. Effective immunization programs could potentially prevent substantial numbers of HPV-related vulvar and vaginal LSILs and HSILs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICALTRIALS.GOV,: NCT00092521 and NCT00092534.

Final efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety analyses of a nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in women aged 16-26 years: a randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary analyses of a study in young women aged 16-26 years showed efficacy of the nine-valent human papillomavirus (9vHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) vaccine against infections and disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and non-inferior HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibody responses when compared with quadrivalent HPV (qHPV; HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. We aimed to report efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine for up to 6 years following first administration and antibody responses over 5 years. METHODS: We undertook this randomised, double-blind, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety study of the 9vHPV vaccine study at 105 study sites in 18 countries. Women aged 16-26 years old who were healthy, with no history of abnormal cervical cytology, no previous abnormal cervical biopsy results, and no more than four lifetime sexual partners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive three intramuscular injections over 6 months of 9vHPV or qHPV (control) vaccine. All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staff, members of the sponsor's study team, and members of the adjudication pathology panel were masked to vaccination groups. The primary outcomes were incidence of high-grade cervical disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, adenocarcinoma in situ, invasive cervical carcinoma), vulvar disease (vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vulvar cancer), and vaginal disease (vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3, vaginal cancer) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1·5 times) of anti-HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 geometric mean titres (GMT). Tissue samples were adjudicated for histopathology diagnosis and tested for HPV DNA. Serum antibody responses were assessed by competitive Luminex immunoassay. The primary evaluation of efficacy was a superiority analysis in the per-protocol efficacy population, supportive efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, and the primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543543. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, we recruited and randomly assigned 14 215 participants to receive 9vHPV (n=7106) or qHPV (n=7109) vaccine. In the per-protocol population, the incidence of high-grade cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 was 0·5 cases per 10 000 person-years in the 9vHPV and 19·0 cases per 10 000 person-years in the qHPV groups, representing 97·4% efficacy (95% CI 85·0-99·9). HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 GMTs were non-inferior in the 9vHPV versus qHPV group from month 1 to 3 years after vaccination. No clinically meaningful differences in serious adverse events were noted between the study groups. 11 participants died during the study follow-up period (six in the 9vHPV vaccine group and five in the qHPV vaccine group); none of the deaths were considered vaccine-related. INTERPRETATION: The 9vHPV vaccine prevents infection, cytological abnormalities, high-grade lesions, and cervical procedures related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both the 9vHPV vaccine and qHPV vaccine had a similar immunogenicity profile with respect to HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine efficacy was sustained for up to 6 years. The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially provide broader coverage and prevent 90% of cervical cancer cases worldwide. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Evaluation of two vaccine education interventions to improve pertussis vaccination among pregnant African American women: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination coverage with tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine in pregnancy or immediately postpartum has been low. Limited data exist on rigorously evaluated interventions to increase maternal vaccination, including Tdap. Tailored messaging based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) framework has been successful in improving uptake of some public health interventions. We evaluated the effect of two ELM-based vaccine educational interventions on Tdap vaccination among pregnant African American women, a group of women who tend to have lower vaccine uptake compared with other groups. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to pilot test two interventions - an affective messaging video and a cognitive messaging iBook - among pregnant African American women recruited during routine prenatal care visits. We measured Tdap vaccination during the perinatal period (during pregnancy and immediately postpartum), reasons for non-vaccination, and intention to receive Tdap in the next pregnancy. RESULTS: Among the enrolled women (n=106), 90% completed follow-up. Tdap vaccination in the perinatal period was 18% in the control group; 50% in the iBook group (Risk Ratio [vs. control group]: 2.83; 95% CI, 1.26-6.37), and 29% in the video group (RR: 1.65; 95% CI, 0.66-4.09). From baseline to follow-up, women's reported intention to receive Tdap during the next pregnancy improved in all three groups. Among unvaccinated women, the most common reason reported for non-vaccination was lack of a recommendation for Tdap by the woman's physician. CONCLUSIONS: Education interventions that provide targeted information for pregnant women in an interactive manner may be useful to improve Tdap vaccination during the perinatal period. However, larger studies including multiple racial and ethnic groups are needed to evaluate robustness of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01740310.

Impact of a multi-component antenatal vaccine promotion package on improving knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding whether interventions designed to improve antenatal vaccine uptake also change women's knowledge about vaccination is critical for improving vaccine coverage. This exploratory study evaluates the effectiveness of a multi-component influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine promotion package on improving women's knowledge, attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: In 2012/2013 a cluster-randomized trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of a vaccine promotion package on improving antenatal vaccine coverage. Participants included 325 unvaccinated pregnant women from 11 obstetric practices in Georgia. Eleven health beliefs measures were assessed at baseline and 2-3 months post-partum. Outcomes were differences in proportions of women citing favorable responses to each measure between study groups at follow-up. RESULTS: Women enrolled in their third trimester had a higher probability of asking family members to vaccinate to protect the infant if they were in the intervention group versus the control group (36% vs. 22%; risk ratio [RR] = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.26). A similar association was not observed among women enrolled before their third trimester (39% vs. 44%; RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.73). There were no other significant differences at follow-up between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: While exposure to the intervention package may have raised awareness that vaccinating close contacts can protect an infant, there is little evidence that the package changed women's attitudes and beliefs toward antenatal vaccination. Future research should ensure adequate exposure to the intervention and consider study design aspects including power to assess changes in secondary outcomes, discriminatory power of response options, and social desirability bias. This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, study ID NCT01761799.

Trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy in Georgia, 2004-2011.

BACKGROUND: Considerable research has identified barriers to antenatal influenza vaccination, yet no research has explored temporal trends in reasons for non-receipt. PURPOSE: To examine trends in reasons for non-receipt of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. METHODS: Serial cross-sectional analyses using 8 years of Georgia Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Survey (PRAMS) data were conducted. Weighted logistic regression was used to examine trends in the prevalence of citing reasons for non-receipt over time. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2011, 8300 women reported no influenza vaccination during or immediately before pregnancy. Proportions of women citing "doctor didn't mention vaccination," "in first trimester during influenza season," and "not pregnant during influenza season" decreased significantly over time (Doctor didn't mention: 48.0% vs. 27.1%, test for trend p<0.001; in first trimester: 26.8% vs. 16.3%, test for trend p<0.001; not influenza season: 24.2% vs. 12.7%, test for trend p=0.001). Safety concerns increased over 2004 proportions in 2010 (concern about side effects for me: 40.2% vs. 28.5%, prevalence ratio (PR): 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 1.71; concern about harming my baby: 38.9% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.26, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.53) and 2011 (concern about side effects for me: 39.0% vs. 28.5%, PR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.65; concern about harming my baby: 38.8% vs. 31.0%, PR=1.25, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.50). Following the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, more Hispanic women cited concern about vaccination harming their baby than other women; in 2011, their concern remained elevated relative to non-Hispanic white women (63% vs. 35%; adjusted PR=1.79, 95% CI: 1.23, 2.61). CONCLUSION: Examining trends in reasons for non-receipt of antenatal influenza vaccination can reflect successes related to vaccine promotion and areas for improvement. By highlighting differential impacts of the 2009/2010 H1N1 pandemic, we reveal opportunities for additional research on tailoring vaccine promotion efforts to specific types of women.

Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands: Options and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Successful cervical cancer screening in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands (USAPI) is limited by geographic, political, economic, and logistic factors. An expert panel convened to examine screening in each of the 6 island jurisdictions and to explore options beyond cytology-based screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one representatives of American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, government agencies, the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, health representatives of the 6 Pacific island jurisdictions, Puerto Rico, and several academic institutions met in a 2-day meeting to explore options to improve access and coverage of cervical cancer screening in the USAPI. RESULTS: Cytology-based screening is less widely accessed and less successful in the USAPI than in the United States in general. Barriers include geographic isolation, cultural factors, and lack of resources. Cytology-based screening requires multiple visits to complete the process from screening to treatment. Screen-and-treat regimens based on visual inspection with acetic acid or human papillomavirus requiring 1 or 2 visits have the potential to improve cervical cancer prevention in the USAPI. CONCLUSIONS: The standard US algorithm of cytology screening followed by colposcopy and treatment is less effective in geographically and culturally isolated regions such as the USAPI. Alternate technologies, both high tech, such as primary human papillomavirus screening, and low tech, such as visual inspection with acetic acid, have shown promise in resource-poor countries and may have applicability in these US jurisdictions.

Human papillomavirus detection in cervical neoplasia attributed to 12 high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes by region.

BACKGROUND: We estimated the proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) cases attributed to 14 HPV types, including quadrivalent (qHPV) (6/11/16/18) and 9-valent (9vHPV) (6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) vaccine types, by region METHODS: Women ages 15-26 and 24-45 years from 5 regions were enrolled in qHPV vaccine clinical trials. Among 10,706 women (placebo arms), 1539 CIN1, 945 CIN2/3, and 24 adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) cases were diagnosed by pathology panel consensus. RESULTS: Predominant HPV types were 16/51/52/56 (anogenital infection), 16/39/51/52/56 (CIN1), and 16/31/52/58 (CIN2/3). In regions with largest sample sizes, minimal regional variation was observed in 9vHPV type prevalence in CIN1 (~50%) and CIN2/3 (81-85%). Types 31/33/45/52/58 accounted for 25-30% of CIN1 in Latin America and Europe, but 14-18% in North America and Asia. Types 31/33/45/52/58 accounted for 33-38% of CIN2/3 in Latin America (younger women), Europe, and Asia, but 17-18% of CIN2/3 in Latin America (older women) and North America. Non-vaccine HPV types 35/39/51/56/59 had similar or higher prevalence than qHPV types in CIN1 and were attributed to 2-11% of CIN2/3. CONCLUSIONS: The 9vHPV vaccine could potentially prevent the majority of CIN1-3, irrespective of geographic region. Notwithstanding, non-vaccine types 35/39/51/56/59 may still be responsible for some CIN1, and to a lesser extent CIN2/3.

The Expanded Impact of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine.

Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. Some infections will result in anogenital warts and anogenital or oropharyngeal cancers. Preventing HPV infection is a public health priority to reduce cancer and HPV-associated complications. Prevention through vaccination is the most cost-effective and lifesaving intervention to decrease the burden of HPV-related cancers and other HPV-associated diseases. It is critical for pediatricians to make a strong recommendation for early and timely vaccination and completion of the 3-dose series. The goal of early vaccination is to immunize before first exposure to HPV virus.

Factors Associated with Intention to Receive Influenza and Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccines during Pregnancy: A Focus on Vaccine Hesitancy and Perceptions of Disease Severity and Vaccine Safety.

BACKGROUND: Improving influenza and tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine coverage among pregnant women is needed. PURPOSE: To assess factors associated with intention to receive influenza and/or Tdap vaccinations during pregnancy with a focus on perceptions of influenza and pertussis disease severity and influenza vaccine safety. METHODS: Participants were 325 pregnant women in Georgia recruited from December 2012 - April 2013 who had not yet received a 2012/2013 influenza vaccine or a Tdap vaccine while pregnant. Women completed a survey assessing influenza vaccination history, likelihood of receiving antenatal influenza and/or Tdap vaccines, and knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about influenza, pertussis, and their associated vaccines. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent and 81% of women believed influenza and pertussis, respectively, would be serious during pregnancy while 87% and 92% believed influenza and pertussis, respectively, would be serious to their infants. Perception of pertussis severity for their infant was strongly associated with an intention to receive a Tdap vaccine before delivery (p=0.004). Despite perceptions of disease severity for themselves and their infants, only 34% and 44% intended to receive antenatal influenza and Tdap vaccines, respectively. Forty-six percent had low perceptions of safety regarding the influenza vaccine during pregnancy, and compared to women who perceived the influenza vaccine as safe, women who perceived the vaccine as unsafe were less likely to intend to receive antenatal influenza (48% vs. 20%; p < 0.001) or Tdap (53% vs. 33%; p < 0.001) vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this baseline survey suggest that while pregnant women who remain unvaccinated against influenza within the first three months of the putative influenza season may be aware of the risks influenza and pertussis pose to themselves and their infants, many remain reluctant to receive influenza and Tdap vaccines antenatally. To improve vaccine uptake in the obstetric setting, our findings support development of evidence-based vaccine promotion interventions which emphasize vaccine safety during pregnancy and mention disease severity in infancy.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective U.S.-based registration study. Thirteen experts, including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Cytopathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.