Barriers to the assessment and recommendation of HPV vaccination among healthcare providers in Texas.

Background: Healthcare providers (HCPs) recommendations for HPV vaccination plays a critical role in increasing vaccination uptake. This study assesses the prevalence of reported barriers to HPV vaccination assessment and recommendation among HCPs in Texas. Methods: Study data were obtained from a population-based survey of HCPs currently practicing in Texas. Participants were asked about their HPV vaccination assessment and recommendation practices and the reasons for not assessing or recommending the vaccine. Barriers were stratified by HCP characteristics including age, sex, race/ethnicity, location of practice, provider type, and type of facility. Results: Among the 826 HCPs included in this study, 47.3 % never, 49.6 % sometimes, and 3.0 % often/always assessed a patient's HPV vaccination status. Similarly, 36.0 % never, 36.2 % sometimes, and 27.9 % often/always recommended HPV vaccination. The most frequently reported barriers to assessment and recommendation of HPV vaccination were time constraints (22.9 %), delegating the task to others (15.0 %), lack of effective tools and information to give patients (12.0 %), and requiring additional training (9.2 %). HCPs who were female, less than 35 years old, non-Hispanic black, and nonphysician HCPs (Physician Assistant, Nurse Practitioner) most frequently reported lacking effective tools and information and a need for additional training. Conclusion: The assessment and recommendation for HPV vaccination among HCPs in Texas is suboptimal. Barriers reported varied based on the provider's characteristics. Addressing these barriers, such as by providing more effective tools and information and offering additional training to HCPs, could potentially increase HPV vaccination rates in Texas. The findings also suggest that interventions should be tailored to specific demographic groups.

Exposure to school-based tobacco prevention interventions in low-income and middle-income countries and its association with psychosocial predictors of smoking among adolescents: a pooled cross-sectional analysis of Global Youth Tobacco Survey data from 38 countries.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of school-based tobacco prevention programme exposure among adolescents in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and its association with psychosocial predictors of smoking. DESIGN: Analysis of pooled cross-sectional data. SETTING: Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS), conducted in 38 LMICs. PARTICIPANTS: This was a pooled analysis of data involving a total of 132 755 adolescent respondents to GYTS in 38 LMICs across Africa, Europe and Central/South America between 2014 and 2017. EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary independent variable for this study was self-reported exposure to school-based tobacco prevention programmes in the past year. Five psychosocial determinants of smoking were explored as outcomes: perceived addictiveness of nicotine, perceived harm of secondhand smoke exposure, support for restricting cigarette smoking at public indoor locations, support for restricting cigarette smoking at public outdoor areas and self-reported prediction of enjoying cigarette smoking. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between exposure to school-based tobacco prevention programmes and study outcomes, controlling for sociodemographic and smoking-related characteristics of respondents. RESULTS: Overall, 59.1% of adolescents in LMICs self-reported exposure to school-based tobacco prevention programmes. The country-specific prevalence of adolescent exposure to school-based tobacco interventions ranged from 24.9% in the Comoros to 99.3% in Turkmenistan. Exposure to school-based tobacco interventions was significantly associated with greater secondhand smoke harm perceptions (adjusted OR (AOR): 1.69; 95% CI: 1.69 to 1.70), perceptions of addictiveness (AOR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.36 to 1.37) and supporting tobacco use restrictions indoors (AOR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.69 to 1.70) and outdoors (AOR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.59 to 1.60). Exposure to school-based tobacco interventions was associated with lower odds of anticipating enjoying cigarette smoking (AOR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Exposure to tobacco prevention programmes in schools is suboptimal in LMICs. Given the protective associations described in this study from school-based tobacco prevention programme exposure, it is imperative that national governments implement school-based programmes into ongoing tobacco control measures.

Awareness and interest in cannabis use for cancer management among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: We examined the awareness, interest, and information sources relating to cannabis use for cancer management (including management of cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects) and determined factors associated with cancer survivors' awareness and interest in learning about cannabis use for cancer management. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of adult cancer survivors (N = 1886) receiving treatment at a comprehensive cancer center. Weighted prevalence and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Among cancer survivors, 88% were aware and 60% were interested in learning about cannabis use for cancer management. Common sources of information to learn about cannabis use for cancer management were cancer doctors/nurses (82%), other patients with cancer (27%), websites/blogs (26%), marijuana stores (20%), and family/friends (18%). The odds of being aware of cannabis use for cancer management was lower among male compared to female survivors (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.90), non-Hispanic Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites (AOR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.21-0.62), and survivors who do not support the legalization of cannabis for medical use compared to those who do (AOR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.04-0.23). On the other hand, the odds of being interested in cannabis use for cancer management was higher among non-Hispanic Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites (AOR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.04-2.62), and among cancer survivors actively undergoing cancer treatment compared to patients on non-active treatment (AOR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.74-2.91). CONCLUSION: Awareness of cannabis use for cancer management is high within the cancer survivor population. Results indicated health care providers are leading information source and should receive continued medical education on cannabis-specific guidelines. Similarly, tailored educational interventions are needed to guide survivors on the benefits and risks of cannabis use for cancer management.

Cannabis Use among Cancer Survivors: Use Pattern, Product Type, and Timing of Use.

Despite growing interest in the use of cannabis for the treatment of cancer-related symptoms, there are limited studies that have assessed the use pattern, type, and mode of delivery of cannabis products used by cancer survivors. This study describes the current state of the use pattern, product type, and mode of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors. This was a cross-sectional study of cancer survivors from 41 U.S. states who received treatment at the largest NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. The weighted prevalence of the use patterns, product types, and modes of delivery of cannabis used by cancer survivors was estimated. A total of 1886 cancer survivors were included in the study, with 915 (48% [95% CI: 45-51]) reporting ever using cannabis. Of survivors who had ever used cannabis, 36% (95% CI: 33-40) were current users. Among survivors who reported cannabis use after diagnosis, 40% used cannabis during and after cancer treatment, 35% used cannabis during treatment, and 25% used cannabis after completing their cancer treatment. Additionally, 48% of survivors reported an increase in cannabis use since cancer diagnosis. The commonest types of cannabis products used by cancer survivors were dry leaf cannabis (71%), cannabidiol (CBD) oil (46%), and cannabis candy (40%). Moreover, cancer survivors frequently used baked goods (32%), creams and gels (21%), and tinctures (18%). Furthermore, among ever users, the predominant mode of use was cannabis inhalation/smoking (69%) compared to eating/drinking (59%). More so, the common mode of inhalation/smoking of cannabis products were rolled cannabis cigarettes (79%), pipes (36%), water pipes (34%), vaporizers or vapes (14%), and e-cigarette devices (14%). A substantial number of cancer survivors use cannabis during cancer treatment, with increased use following cancer diagnosis. The forms and modes of delivery of cannabis varied among survivors, with most survivors inhaling or smoking cannabis. There is a need to educate healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors on current evidence of cannabis use and strengthen cannabis regulatory frameworks to optimize benefits and minimize adverse events from cannabis use during cancer treatment.

Prevalence, reasons for use, perceived benefits, and awareness of health risks of cannabis use among cancer survivors - implications for policy and interventions.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing discourse on the use of cannabis as a palliative for cancer/cancer-treatment-related symptoms. We described the prevalent reasons for use, perceived benefits, and awareness of health risks from cannabis use for cancer management among cancer survivors. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of adult (≥ 18 years) cancer survivors from 41 US states receiving treatment at a comprehensive cancer center. RESULTS: Of 1,886 cancer survivors included, 17.4% were current users, 30.5% were former users, and 52.2% were never users of cannabis. Among survivors who currently or formerly used cannabis after their cancer diagnosis (n = 510), the reasons for cannabis use in cancer management were; sleep disturbance (60%), pain (51%), stress (44%), nausea (34%), and mood disorder/depression (32%). Also, about a fifth (91/510) of survivors used cannabis to treat their cancer. Across the different symptoms assessed, over half of the survivors who reported a reason for using cannabis currently or after their cancer diagnosis perceived that cannabis was helpful to a great extent in improving their symptoms. However, of the 167 survivors who reported awareness of potential health risks from cannabis use, the awareness of adverse health risks associated with cannabis use was low: suicidal thoughts (5%), intense nausea and vomiting (6%), depression (11%), anxiety (14%), breathing problems (31%), and interaction with cancer drugs (35%). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of cannabis use among survivors was notable, with most reporting a great degree of symptomatic improvement for the specified reason for use. However, only a few were aware of the health risks of cannabis use during cancer management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With more cancer survivors using cannabis as a palliative in managing their cancer-related symptoms, future guidelines and policies on cannabis use in cancer management should incorporate cannabis-based interventions to minimize the inadvertent harm from cannabis use during cancer treatment among survivors.

Barriers and determinants of consistent offering of HPV vaccination by healthcare facilities.

Expanding access to HPV vaccination is critical to increasing HPV vaccine uptake. We assessed the determinants and barriers to consistent offering of HPV vaccine among healthcare facilities. This was a cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers (HCPs) in Texas. Prevalence of the reasons healthcare practices do not consistently offer HPV vaccination was estimated. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted. Of 1169 HCPs included in the study, 47.5% (95% CI: 44.6-50.3%) reported their practices do not provide HPV vaccination or do not offer it consistently. Compared to physicians, nurses had 77% lower odds (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.32, p-value: < .001), and physician assistants had 89% lower odds (AOR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16, p-value: < .001) of their healthcare practices consistently offering HPV vaccination. Compared to university/teaching hospitals, the odds of healthcare practices consistently offering HPV vaccination were 44% lower (AOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.91, p-value: 0.019) in solo practices but 266% higher (AOR: 3.66, 95% CI: 2.04-6.58, p-value: < .001) in FQHC/public facilities. The common reasons healthcare practices do not consistently offer HPV vaccination were; HPV vaccination is not within the scope of the practice (48.1%), referrals to other clinics (27.7%), and limited personnel (11.4%). Non-physicians were more likely to report that HPV vaccination was not in their scope and to refer patients than physicians. Moreover, solo practices were more likely to report challenges with acquisition and storage of the vaccine and referral of patients as reasons for not consistently offering HPV vaccination than university/teaching hospitals, FQHC/public facilities, or group practices. System-level interventions including training of non-physicians and expansion of practice enrollment in programs that support HPV vaccine acquisition and storage are needed.

Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccine uptake: role of state religiosity and healthcare professionals' participation in a state vaccine program.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known benefits of preventing human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers, HPV vaccine coverage is low in the United States. Grounded in Social Ecological theory, we assessed the macro-level (state) and meso-level (organization) factors associated with HPV vaccine initiation and up-to-date. METHODS: Data from 2020 National Immunization Survey-Teen were used to study a sample of 20 163 US adolescents (aged 13-17 years). The data were collected from each teen's parents or guardians and health-care professionals. Weighted prevalence estimates were calculated, and multivariable regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The prevalence of HPV vaccine initiation was 75.1% and of remaining up-to-date was 58.6%. At the macro level, teens living in states with high and moderate religiosity had lower odds of HPV vaccine initiation (high religiosity adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50 to 0.78; moderate religiosity AOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.85) and up-to-date (high religiosity AOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.85; moderate religiosity AOR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.91) than states with low religiosity. At the meso level, when none of their healthcare professionals ordered vaccine from the state, teens had lower odds of initiation (AOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.87) and up-to-date (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.95) than teens whose healthcare professionals ordered vaccine from the state. In addition, race and ethnicity, age, mother's education level, household income, well-child examination status, and doctor's recommendation were significantly associated with HPV vaccine uptake. CONCLUSION: A multiprong approach is needed to address religious and systemic barriers to HPV vaccination and expand healthcare professionals' access and enrollment in state vaccine initiatives, such as the Vaccine for Children program.

Individual, systemic and state factors associated with provider recommendation of HPV vaccination: Findings from NIS-Teen, 2020.

The most important determinant of HPV vaccination uptake is healthcare provider recommendation, yet not all eligible patients receive HPV vaccination recommendations. We used data from the 2020 National Immunization Survey-Teen to determine individual, systemic, and state factors associated with provider recommendation of HPV vaccination. A total of 18,534 teens were included, with 81.4% receiving provider recommendations for HPV vaccination. HPV vaccination recommendation was higher among females compared to males (AOR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27-1.93), teens who received a well-child exam at 11 or 12 years compared to those who did not (AOR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.61-2.74), and teens whose mothers had college, some college or at least a high school education compared to those with less than high school education. In addition to individual factors, provider recommendation of HPV vaccination was higher in hospitals (AOR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.00-2.29) and STD/school/teen clinics (AOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.05-5.78) compared to public facilities. However, the odds of provider recommendation were lower when none of the teen's providers ordered vaccines from the state compared to when all teen providers ordered vaccines from the state (AOR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93). Moreover, the state's mean prevalence of provider recommendations of HPV vaccination was 7.2% lower (Coefficient: -0.072; 95% CI: -0.107 - -0.036) in states with high religious ideology compared to those with low religious ideology. Interventions to increase provider recommendation of HPV vaccination should take a multiprong and comprehensive approach that addresses religious and systemic barriers to HPV vaccination recommendation.

Reasons patients cite to their health-care professional for not initiating or completing human papillomavirus vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is critical to the prevention of HPV-associated cancers. This study aimed to describe the reasons patients cited for not initiating or completing the HPV vaccination series, as reported by health-care professionals. METHODS: Study data were obtained from a University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center population-based cross-sectional survey of health-care professionals practicing in Texas. Prevalence estimates of reasons cited for not initiating or completing HPV vaccination were estimated by patient population (parents of children and adult patients). RESULTS: The study included 973 primary care clinicians, of whom 45.53% were physicians and 54.47% were midlevel care professionals. For parents who did not initiate HPV vaccination for their child, the most commonly cited reasons were the belief that the vaccine was not needed (52.54%, 95% CI = 48.90% to 56.15%), that the child was not sexually active (52.54%, 95% CI = 48.90% to 56.15%), and safety concerns/side effects (47.05%, 95% CI = 43.44% to 50.69%). Among age-eligible adults who did not initiate HPV vaccination, lack of knowledge and awareness was the most commonly cited reason (30.52%, 95% CI = 27.71% to 33.50%). For noncompletion of the HPV vaccine series, parents most commonly cited competing priorities (41.29%, 95% CI = 37.76% to 44.91%), followed by adverse reactions after the first dose (16.05%, 95% CI = 13.56% to 18.90%). Similarly, for noncompletion of the HPV vaccine series among adults, competing priorities was the most cited reason (31.04%, 95% CI = 28.20% to 34.02%). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance of addressing misconceptions and improving education about HPV vaccination to increase vaccination uptake rates and prevent HPV-related cancers.

Healthcare Provider's Perceived Self-Efficacy in HPV Vaccination Hesitancy Counseling and HPV Vaccination Acceptance.

BACKGROUND: HPV vaccine hesitancy is a key contributor to the sub-optimal HPV vaccination uptake in the United States. We aimed to determine the association between healthcare providers' self-efficacy in HPV vaccination hesitancy counseling and HPV vaccination acceptance after initial and follow-up counseling sessions. METHODS: Population-based cross-sectional study of healthcare providers (HCPs) practicing in Texas. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the odds of HPV vaccination acceptance by vaccine-hesitant patients. Additionally, generalized estimating equations were used to compare HPV vaccination acceptance by hesitant patients after follow-up versus initial counseling sessions. RESULTS: 1283 HCPs completed the survey with a mean (SD) age of 47.1 (11.3) years. HCPs who believed that they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV-vaccine-hesitant parents had higher odds of observing HPV vaccination acceptance very often/always after an initial counseling session (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 3.50; 95% CI: 2.25-5.44) and after follow-up counseling sessions (AOR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.66-4.00) compared to HCPs that perceived they were not at all/somewhat/moderately confident. The odds of HPV vaccination being accepted very often/always by vaccine-hesitant parents was 61% (AOR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.32-1.95) higher after follow-up counseling sessions compared to an initial counseling session. The results were similar for the counseling of HPV-vaccine-hesitant adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: The confidence level of HCPs in counseling hesitant parents and adult patients impacts HPV vaccination acceptance. Importantly, acceptance was higher after follow-up counseling sessions than initial counseling sessions. HCPs should receive training in HPV vaccination counseling to enhance their confidence in counseling hesitant patients and should utilize every visit to counsel hesitant patients.

HPV Vaccination Training of Healthcare Providers and Perceived Self-Efficacy in HPV Vaccine-Hesitancy Counseling.

HPV vaccine hesitancy is a key barrier to HPV vaccination. Using a population-based survey of HCPs practicing in Texas we determined the association between formal training of HCPs and perceived self-efficacy in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients. A total of 1283 HCPs completed the survey, with 879 providing vaccination services to pediatric patients and 1018 providing vaccination services to adult patients. Among HCPs included in this study, 405 of 577 (70%) and 315 of 505 (62%) perceived they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients, respectively. Compared to HCPs who received no training, those who received formal training in HPV vaccination promotion or counseling had 2.56 (AOR: 2.56; 95% CI:1.69-3.86) and 2.84 times higher odds (AOR: 2.84; 95% CI:1.87-4.33) of perceiving that they were very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients, respectively. Additionally, increasing years of practice and volume of patients seen were positively associated with being very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents and adult patients. On the other hand, nurses were less likely than physicians to be very/completely confident in counseling HPV vaccine-hesitant parents. To increase HPV vaccination uptake, HCPs should receive tailored training to improve their self-efficacy in addressing HPV vaccine-hesitancy.

Association of provider HPV vaccination training with provider assessment of HPV vaccination status and recommendation of HPV vaccination.

The delivery of strong HPV vaccine recommendations hinges on the expertise of healthcare providers (HCPs) in assessing patients' status and recommending HPV vaccination. We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of HCPs practicing in Texas to examine the relationship between HPV vaccination training of HCPs and HPV vaccination status assessment and recommendation. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between HCPs' formal training and recency of training in HPV vaccination promotion or counseling with HPV vaccination status assessment and recommendation. Of the 1,283 HCPs who completed the online survey, 43% had received training in HPV vaccination promotion or counseling, 47% often/always assess HPV vaccination status, and 59% often/always recommend HPV vaccination. Compared with HCPs who received no training, those who received training had over four times higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 4.32; 95% CI: 3.06-6.10) of often/always assessing HPV vaccination status and over three and half times higher odds (AOR: 3.66; 95% CI: 2.73-4.90) of often/always recommending HPV vaccination. Furthermore, HCPs who recently received HPV vaccination training had higher odds of HPV vaccination status assessment and recommendations than those without training. Hispanic HCPs had higher odds of often/always assessing HPV vaccination status and recommending vaccination than did non-Hispanic White HCPs. Also, nurses and physician assistants had lower odds of often/always assessing HPV vaccination status and recommending HPV vaccination than did physicians. Targeted and continuous training of HCPs in HPV vaccination promotion or counseling is needed to increase HPV vaccination status assessment, recommendation, and uptake rates.

Healthcare Provider Recommendations and Observed Changes in HPV Vaccination Acceptance during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Healthcare provider (HCP) recommendation of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is crucial for HPV vaccination acceptance and uptake. It is unclear to what extent the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the recommendation and acceptance of HPV vaccination. HCPs practicing in Texas were invited to complete an online survey between January and April 2021. This population-based survey examined the association between HPV vaccination recommendation by HCPs and their observed changes in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the total 715 HCPs included in this study, 13.9% reported a decrease, 8.7% reported an increase, and 77.5% reported no change in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the HCPs who never/sometimes recommend HPV vaccination, those who often/always recommend HPV vaccination were less likely to observe a decrease (12.3% vs. 22.1%) and more likely to observe an increase in HPV vaccination (9.1% vs. 6.2%), during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, those who provided recommendations often/always had 46% (odds ratio: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.30-0.96) lower odds of reporting a decrease in HPV vaccination acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study adds to prior evidence of the positive influence of provider recommendations on HPV vaccination acceptance despite the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention services.

How service delivery implementation strategies can contribute to attaining universal health coverage: lessons from polio eradication using an implementation science approach.

BACKGROUND: Improving service delivery is a key strategy for achieving service coverage, one of the two components of universal health coverage (UHC). As one of the largest global public health initiatives, individuals involved with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) have learned many important lessons about service delivery. We identified contributors and challenges to delivering health services at national and subnational levels using experiences from the GPEI. We described strategies used to strengthen service delivery and draw lessons that could be applicable to achieving UHC. METHODS: Online cross-sectional surveys based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains and socioecological model were conducted from 2018-2019. Data were analyzed using an embedded mixed methods approach. Frequencies of the contributors and challenges to service delivery by levels of involvement were estimated. Chi-square tests of independence were used to assess unadjusted associations among categorical outcome variables. Logistic regressions were used to examine the association between respondent characteristics and contributors to successful implementation or implementation challenges. Horizontal analysis of free text responses by CFIR domain was done to contextualize the quantitative results. RESULTS: Three thousand nine hundred fifty-five people responded to the online survey which generated 3,659 valid responses. Among these, 887 (24.2%) reported involvement in service delivery at the global, national, or subnational level with more than 90% involved at subnational levels. The main internal contributor of strengthened service delivery was the process of conducting activities (48%); working in frontline role had higher odds of identifying the process of conducting activities as the main internal contributor (AOR: 1.22, p = 0.687). The main external contributor was the social environment (42.5%); having 10-14 years of polio program implementation was significantly associated with identifying the social environment as the main external contributor to strengthened service delivery (AOR: 1.61, p = 0.038). The most frequent implementation challenge was the external environment (56%); working in Eastern Mediterranean region was almost 4 times more likely to identify the external environment as the major challenge in service delivery strengthening (AOR:3.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Priority actions to improve service delivery include: adopt strategies to systematically reach hard-to-reach populations, expand disease-focused programs to support broader primary healthcare priorities, maximize community outreach strategies to reach broader age groups, build community trust in health workers and develop multisectoral leadership for collaboration. Achieving UHC is contingent on strengthened subnational service delivery.

Facilitators and barriers of infectious diseases surveillance activities: lessons from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative - a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To document lessons from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) by determining factors associated with successful surveillance programme globally as well as at national and subnational levels. The process of conducting surveillance has been previously recognised in the literature as important for the success of polio surveillance activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with closed and open-ended questions. SETTINGS: Survey of persons involved in the implementation of surveillance activities under the GPEI at the global level and in seven low-income and middle-income countries. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals (n=802) with ≥12 months of experience implementing surveillance objective of the GPEI between 1988 and 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance programme. Horizontal analysis was used to analyse qualitative free-text responses on facilitators and barriers identified for conducting surveillance activities successfully. RESULTS: Overall, participants who reported challenges relating to GPEI programme characteristics had 50% lower odds of reporting implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (adjusted OR (AOR): 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.85). Challenges were mainly perceptions of external intervention source (ie, surveillance perceived as 'foreign' to local communities) and the complexity of surveillance processes (ie, surveillance required several intricate steps). Those who reported organisational challenges were almost two times more likely to report implementation process as a factor for successful surveillance (AOR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.31) overall, and over threefolds (AOR: 3.32, 95% CI: 1.14 to 9.66) at the national level. CONCLUSIONS: Programme characteristics may have impeded the process of conducting surveillance under the GPEI, while organisational characteristics may have facilitated the process. Future surveillance programmes should be designed with inputs from local communities and frontline implementers.

Spatial Patterns of COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage by Social Vulnerability Index and Designated COVID-19 Vaccine Sites in Texas.

Equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine remains a public health priority. This study explores the association between ZIP Code−Tabulation Area level Social Vulnerability Indices (SVI) and COVID-19 vaccine coverage in Texas. A mixed-effects, multivariable, random-intercept negative binomial model was used to explore the association between ZIP Code−Tabulation Area level SVI and COVID-19 vaccination coverage stratified by the availability of a designated vaccine access site. Lower COVID-19 vaccine coverage was observed in ZIP codes with the highest overall SVIs (adjusted mean difference (aMD) = −13, 95% CI, −23.8 to −2.1, p < 0.01), socioeconomic characteristics theme (aMD = −16.6, 95% CI, −27.3 to −5.7, p = 0.01) and housing and transportation theme (aMD = −18.3, 95% CI, −29.6 to −7.1, p < 0.01) compared with the ZIP codes with the lowest SVI scores. The vaccine coverage was lower in ZIP Code−Tabulation Areas with higher median percentages of Hispanics (aMD = −3.3, 95% CI, −6.5 to −0.1, p = 0.04) and Blacks (aMD = −3.7, 95% CI, −6.4 to −1, p = 0.01). SVI negatively impacted COVID-19 vaccine coverage in Texas. Access to vaccine sites did not address disparities related to vaccine coverage among minority populations. These findings are relevant to guide the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines in regions with similar demographic and geospatial characteristics.

Adherence to the Recommended HPV Vaccine Dosing Schedule among Adolescents Aged 13 to 17 Years: Findings from the National Immunization Survey-Teen, 2019-2020.

The 9-valent human papillomavirus (9-vHPV) vaccine uptake rate among adolescents has improved over the years; however, little is known about the adherence to the recommended dosing schedule. This study examines the prevalence and factors associated with adherence to the recommended 9vHPV vaccination dosing schedule among adolescents aged 13 to 17 years. The cross-sectional study was conducted using the 2019-2020 National Immunization Survey-Teen. The parents of 34,619 adolescents were included in our analyses. The overall up-to-date (UTD) prevalence was 57.1%. The UTD prevalence was 60.0% among females and 54.2% among males. Adolescents aged 16 years had the highest UTD prevalence of 63.0%. The UTD prevalence was 61.6% among Hispanics and 54.7% among non-Hispanic Whites. Overall, compared to females, males had 14% lower odds of UTD. The odds of UTD were 1.91 times, 2.08 times, and 1.98 times higher among adolescents aged 15-17 years, respectively, compared to those aged 13 years. Moreover, region, poverty, insurance status, mothers' educational level, and provider recommendation were associated with UTD. Our findings show that adherence to the recommended 9vHPV vaccine schedule is low in the US. Targeted public health efforts are needed to improve the rates of adherence to the recommended 9vHPV dose schedule.

Association of body mass index with outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the vascular quality initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Although several studies have evaluated the impact of obesity on outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, literature examining this association in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is sparse. Here, we use a multi-institutional, international database to assess the role of body mass index (BMI) on adverse outcomes in patients who underwent TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (DTAA) and type B dissections (TBD). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA or TBD from August 2014 to August 2020 was performed. Patients who were underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) were compared with those of normal weight (≥18.5 to <30 kg/m2). Adjustment for confounding was done with multivariable logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards regression as appropriate for studying postoperative or 1-year outcomes. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality. Other outcomes included any postoperative complication, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia. RESULTS: A total of 3423 participants were included in the study, of whom 3.3% (n = 113) were underweight, 65.9% (n = 2253) had normal weight, and 30.8% (n = 1053) were obese. Compared with normal weight, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality in underweight patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-4.14; P = .156). Obese patients who underwent TEVAR for TBD had a 2.7-fold increase in the odds of 30-day mortality compared with normal weight (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.52-4.68; P = .001). Obese and normal weight patients with DTAA had equivalent odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.79-2.23; P = .292). The adjusted hazard of 1-year mortality was 2-fold higher in underweight patients compared with normal weight (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.41-3.29; P < .001), driven by a higher risk of mortality among patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.63-4.21; P < .001). There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality risk between normal weight and obesity in both DTAA (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.54-1.09; P = .146) and TBD (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.85-1.86; P = .248). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, obese patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA had comparable 30-day and 1-year mortality risk as normal weight individuals. Obese patients who underwent TEVAR for TBD demonstrated a 2.7-fold increase in the odds of 30-day mortality, but equivalent mortality risk as normal weight patients at 1 year. TEVAR represents a safe minimally invasive option for treatment of DTAA in obese patients. Future work should be directed toward minimizing perioperative mortality among patients with TBD to optimize TEVAR outcomes.

Examining differences in suicidality between and within mental health disorders and sexual identity among adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading but preventable cause of death and is preceded by domains of thoughts, plans, and attempts. We assessed the prevalence of suicidality domains and determined the association of suicidality domains with sexual identity, mental health disorder symptoms, and sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: We used the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data to perform weighted multivariable logistic regression and margins analyses to examine between and within-group differences in suicidality by sexual identity among adults aged ≥ 18 years. RESULTS: About 4.89%, 1.37%, and 0.56% of the population experienced suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts, respectively. Those aged 18-25 years old had a higher odds of suicidality compared to those aged 26 years or older. Compared to those who reported having no alcohol use dependence, illicit drug use dependence, and major depressive episodes (MDEs), those who reported alcohol use dependence, illicit drug use dependence, and MDE had higher odds of suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts. Between all sexual identity groups, bisexuals who experienced MDEs had the highest probability of having suicidal thoughts while lesbians and gays who experienced MDE showed a higher probability of suicidal plans and attempts compared to heterosexuals. Within each sexual identity group, the probability of having suicidal thoughts, suicidal plans, and suicidal attempts was higher for those who had experienced MDEs compared to those who had not experienced MDEs. CONCLUSION: Substance use disorder and MDE symptoms were associated with increased suicidality, especially among young adults and sexual minority people. This disparity underscores the need for tailored interventions and policies to enhance the provision of prompt mental health screening, diagnosis, and linkage to care for mental health services, particularly among the most vulnerable in the population.

Prevalence and Factors Associated With Mental Health Symptoms in Adults Undergoing Covid-19 Testing.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Understanding the mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on persons receiving COVID-19 testing will help guide mental health interventions. We aimed to determine the association between sociodemographic factors and mental health symptoms at 8 weeks (baseline) after a COVID-19 test, and compare prevalence of mental health symptoms at baseline to those at 16-week follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of adults who received outpatient COVID-19 testing at primary care clinics. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 test results with mental health symptoms. Mental health symptoms reported at baseline were compared to symptoms at 16 weeks follow-up using conditional logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At baseline, a total of 124 (47.51%) participants reported at least mild depressive symptoms, 110 (42.15%) participants endorsed at least mild anxiety symptoms, and 94 participants (35.21%) endorsed hazardous use of alcohol. Females compared to males were at increased risk of at least mild depressive symptoms at baseline (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 2.08; 95% CI: 1.14-3.79). The odds of at least mild depressive symptoms was significantly lower among those residing in zip codes within the highest quartile compared to lowest quartile of household income (AOR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.81). Also, non-Hispanic Whites had significantly higher odds of reporting hazardous alcohol use compared to non-Whites at baseline (AOR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.05-3.57). The prevalence of mental health symptoms remained elevated after 16 weeks. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: We found a high burden of symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as hazardous alcohol use in a diverse population who received testing for COVID-19 in the primary care setting. Primary care providers need to remain vigilant in screening for symptoms of mental health disorders in patients tested for COVID-19 well after initial testing.