A Qualitative Exploration of Attitudes Toward Global Positioning System Tracking and Ecological Momentary Assessment Among Individuals in Substance Use Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The use of tracking technology in substance use research can uncover the role of contextual factors, such as social networks and environmental cues, in triggering cravings and precipitating return to use. Few studies have explored the opinions of individuals in substance use treatment related to tracking technology. METHODS: We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with individuals in substance use treatment facilities in Connecticut and Georgia. Interviews were not limited to individuals with any specific substance use disorder. Interviewers described a hypothetical study involving ecological momentary assessment and global positioning system tracking to examine place-based predictors of substance use. Participants were invited to share reactions to this description. We used thematic analysis to identify themes in participant perceptions of this hypothetical research study. RESULTS: Most participants shared positive opinions about study participation and expressed little to no concern about the tracking components. Participant concerns focused on the security of their information and the potential burden of responding to study questions. Participants largely understood the importance of study participation for promoting greater understanding of substance use and identified potential therapeutic effects of study participation on their own recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals in substance use treatment expressed little concern with research studies or interventions incorporating mobile-tracking elements. Future studies should explore the responsible use of tracking elements in recovery support interventions.

Use of Standing Orders for Vaccination Among Pediatricians.

OBJECTIVES: Standing orders are an effective way to increase vaccination rates, yet little is known about how pediatricians use this strategy for childhood immunizations. We assessed current use of, barriers to using, and factors associated with use of standing orders for vaccination among pediatricians. METHODS: Internet and mail survey from June 2017 to September 2017 among a nationally representative sample of pediatricians. In the principal component analysis of barrier items, we identified 2 factors: physician responsibility and concerns about office processes. A multivariable analysis that included barrier scales and physician and/or practice characteristics was used to identify factors associated with use of standing orders. RESULTS: The response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 59% of respondents reported using standing orders. The most commonly identified barriers among nonusers were concern that patients may mistakenly receive the wrong vaccine (68%), concern that patients prefer to speak with the physician about a vaccine before receiving it (62%), and belief that it is important for the physician to be the person who recommends a vaccine to patients (57%). These 3 items also made up the physician responsibility barrier factor. Respondents with higher physician responsibility scores were less likely to use standing orders (risk ratio: 0.59 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.66] per point increase). System-level decision-making about vaccines, suburban or rural location, and lower concerns about office processes scores were each associated with use of standing orders in the bivariate, but not the multivariable, analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatricians, use of standing orders for vaccination is far from universal. Interventions to increase use of standing orders should address physicians' attitudinal barriers as well as organizational factors.

Pediatricians' Experiences With and Perceptions of the Vaccines for Children Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) provides vaccines for children who may not otherwise be vaccinated because of financial barriers. Pediatrician participation is crucial to the VFC's ongoing success. Our objectives were to assess, among a national sample of pediatricians, (1) VFC program participation, (2) perceived burden versus benefit of participation, and (3) knowledge and perception of a time-limited increased payment for VFC vaccine administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. METHODS: An electronic and mail survey was conducted from June 2017 to September 2017. RESULTS: Response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 86% of pediatricians reported currently participating in the VFC; among those, 85% reported never having considered stopping, 10% considered it but not seriously, and 5% seriously considered it. Among those who had considered no longer participating (n = 47), the most commonly reported reasons included difficulty meeting VFC record-keeping requirements (74%), concern about action by the VFC for noncompliance (61%), and unpredictable VFC vaccine supplies (59%). Participating pediatricians rated, on a scale from -5 (high burden) to +5 (high benefit), their overall perception of the VFC: 63% reported +4 or +5, 23% reported +1 to +3, 5% reported 0, and 9% reported -1 to -5. Of pediatricians, 39% reported awareness of temporary increased payment for VFC vaccine administration. Among those, 10% reported that their practice increased the proportion of Medicaid and/or VFC-eligible patients served on the basis of this change. CONCLUSIONS: For most pediatricians, perceived benefits of VFC participation far outweigh perceived burdens. To ensure the program's ongoing success, it will be important to monitor factors influencing provider participation.