Treatment of infants with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: findings from the PURSUIT network.

PURPOSE: Studies based on administrative databases show that infant pyeloplasty is associated with minority race/ethnicity but lack clinical data that may influence treatment. Our objective was to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with pyeloplasty in infants from three large tertiary centers. METHODS: We reviewed infants with unilateral Society for Fetal Urology (SFU) grade 3-4 hydronephrosis seen at three tertiary centers from 2/1/2018 to 9/30/2019. Patients were excluded if > 6 months old or treated surgically prior to the initial visit. Outcomes were: pyeloplasty < age 1 year and SFU grade on most recent ultrasound (US) within the first year. Covariables included: age at the initial visit, race/ethnicity, treating site, insurance type, febrile UTI, and initial imaging findings. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: 197 patients met study criteria; 19.3% underwent pyeloplasty. Pyeloplasty was associated with: treating site (p = 0.03), SFU 4 on initial US (p = 0.001), MAG-3 (p < 0.001), and T½ > 20 min (p < 0.001) in patients undergoing a MAG-3 (n = 107). MAG-3 (p < 0.001) and location (p = 0.08) were associated with earlier time to pyeloplasty on multivariable Cox analysis. In infants with follow-up US (n = 115), initial SFU grade, MAG-3 evaluation or findings, and pyeloplasty were not associated with improvement of hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that infant pyeloplasty rates vary between sites. Prolonged T½ was associated with surgery despite prior studies suggesting this is a poor predictor of worsening dilation or function. These findings suggest the need to standardize evaluation and indications for intervention in infants with suspected UPJ obstruction.

A validated modification of the vaccine hesitancy scale for childhood, influenza and HPV vaccines.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy contributes to outbreaks of preventable disease worldwide. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), developed by the international WHO SAGE Working Group, has been validated previously for measuring hesitancy towards childhood vaccines; some psychometric properties were suboptimal. METHODS: We collected data using large, nationally-representative samples of parents in the U.S. We adapted the VHS items, and additional hesitancy items, to assess hesitancy towards influenza and HPV vaccines in addition to routine childhood vaccines. We then used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to identify latent constructs and create modified scales for childhood (VHS-child), influenza (VHS-flu) and HPV (VHS-HPV) vaccines with improved psychometric properties. Finally, we compared hesitancy scores on the VHS-child, VHS-flu, and VHS-HPV, to self-reported receipt of each vaccine category, and compared subscale scores to assess whether drivers of hesitancy differed by vaccine category. RESULTS: 2052 parents of children <18 years old completed the VHS-child and VHS-flu while 2020 parents of adolescents completed the VHS-HPV. A two-factor structure of 'risks' and a 'lack of confidence' was found for each vaccine category. Slight modifications to the VHS improved psychometric properties. Hesitancy was strongly associated with vaccine receipt: e.g., 76% of parents not hesitant towards influenza vaccine had vaccinated their child the past season, versus 9% of hesitant parents (p < 0.0001). Subscale scores also differed significantly between vaccines: lack of confidence was greater towards influenza (Median (IQR): 2.0 (1.2, 3.3)) and HPV (2.0 (1.3, 3.0)) vaccines than childhood (1.2 (1.0, 1.8), p < 0.0001 for both) vaccines; perceived risks of HPV vaccines (2.7 (1.7, 3.7)) were greater than for childhood vaccines (2.0 (1.3, 3.0), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our modified VHS scales perform well psychometrically and allow for consistent measurement of the extent and reasons for hesitancy between vaccine categories. We suggest that future work use these scales to examine hesitancy towards other vaccines and to monitor hesitancy over time.

The potential for centralized reminder/recall to increase immunization rates: A national survey of immunization information systems (IIS) managers.

Little is known about Immunization Information System (IIS) attitudes and experiences using Centralized IIS-based Reminder/Recall (CI-R/R), an effective approach to increasing immunization rates. To describe among IIS managers as it relates to CI-R/R: 1) past experiences and future plans conducting it; 2) attitudes and barriers, 3) IIS capabilities and polices that influence, and 4) factors that differentiate IIS who have and have not conducted CI-R/R. Electronic Surveys were sent to all IIS managers in July 2018 using a member listserve. Fifty-seven of 62 IIS programs contacted (92%) responded. The majority (61%) had ever conducted CI-R/R; 34% reported they were "very likely" to conduct CI-R/R within 6 months. The majority (64%) were in favor of CI-R/R. Barriers included lack of staff (78%), competing demands (76%), and cost (63%). Thirty percent reported receiving a ≥75% of immunization data via real-time electronic interfaces (HL7). Overall, 49% and 24% of jurisdictions had mandatory immunization reporting from private and public health entities for childhood and adult immunizations, respectively. Differences between IIS that ever and never performed CI-R/R, respectively, included: mandatory reporting from private and public entities for children (65% v 27%, p = 0.006), having a legal mandate for CI-R/R (50% v 19%, p = 0.02), less likely to prefer practice-based R/R to CI-R/R (68% v. 91%, p = 0.04), and not reporting having too many competing demands (29% v 67%, p = 0.007). Most IIS have conducted CI-R/R and have positive attitudes towards it. Given it effectiveness and low cost, efforts to sustain it should be considered.

Prevalence and characteristics of HPV vaccine hesitancy among parents of adolescents across the US.

BACKGROUND: While many clinicians encounter parents or adolescents who refuse HPV vaccine, little is known about the prevalence of hesitancy for HPV vaccine nationally or its association with vaccination. METHODS: In April 2019, we surveyed families with adolescents 11-17 years using a national online panel (Knowledge Panel®) as the sampling frame. We assessed the prevalence of HPV vaccine hesitancy with the validated 9-item Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS). We used multivariate analyses to assess demographic factors associated with HPV vaccine hesitancy. We also assessed practical barriers to receipt of HPV vaccine and the relationship between barriers and hesitancy. Finally, we evaluated the association between both HPV vaccine hesitancy and practical barriers on HPV vaccine receipt or refusal. RESULTS: 2,177 parents out of 4,185 sampled (52%) completed the survey, 2,020 qualified (lived with adolescent). Using a VHS cut-off score > 3 out of 5 points, 23% of US parents were hesitant about HPV vaccine. Hesitancy was lower among those with Hispanic ethnicity. At least one out of five parents disagreed that the HPV vaccine is beneficial for their adolescent, that the vaccine is effective, protects against HPV-related cancers, or that they followed their adolescent's health-care provider's recommendation about the vaccine. Many were concerned about vaccine side effects and the novelty of the vaccine. Adolescents living with vaccine-hesitant parents were less than one-third as likely to have received the vaccine (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.24, 0.35) or completed the vaccine series (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.23, 0.36), and were 6-fold more likely to have refused the vaccine because of parental vaccine-related concerns (RR = 6.09, 95% CI = 5.26, 7.04). Most practical barriers were independently associated with vaccine receipt but not with vaccine refusal. CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccine hesitancy is common nationally and strongly related to both under-vaccination and vaccine refusal.

Parental Hesitancy About Routine Childhood and Influenza Vaccinations: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization has designated vaccine hesitancy as 1 of the 10 leading threats to global health, yet there is limited current national data on prevalence of hesitancy among US parents. Among a nationally representative sample of US parents, we aimed to (1) assess and compare prevalence of hesitancy and factors driving hesitancy for routine childhood and influenza vaccination and (2) examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics and hesitancy for routine childhood or influenza vaccination. METHODS: In February 2019, we surveyed families with children using the largest online panel generating representative US samples. After weighting, we assessed hesitancy using a modified 5-point Vaccine Hesitancy Scale and labeled parents as hesitant if they scored >3. RESULTS: A total of 2176 of 4445 parents sampled completed the survey (response rate 49%). Hesitancy prevalence was 6.1% for routine childhood and 25.8% for influenza vaccines; 12% strongly and 27% somewhat agreed they had concerns about serious side effects of both routine childhood and influenza vaccines. A total of 70% strongly agreed that routine childhood vaccines are effective versus 26% for influenza vaccine (P < .001). In multivariable models, an educational level lower than a bachelor's degree and household income <400% of the federal poverty level predicted hesitancy about both routine childhood and influenza vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in 15 US parents are hesitant about routine childhood vaccines, whereas >1 in 4 are hesitant about influenza vaccine. Furthermore, 1 in 8 parents are concerned about vaccine safety for both routine childhood and influenza vaccines, and only 1 in 4 believe influenza vaccine is effective. Vaccine hesitancy, particularly for influenza vaccine, is prevalent in the United States.

Effect of State Immunization Information System Based Reminder/Recall for Influenza Vaccinations: A Randomized Trial of Autodialer, Text, and Mailed Messages.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Influenza Vaccination Rates: A Two-State Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) by health departments using immunization information systems is more effective and cost effective than practice-based approaches for increasing childhood vaccines but has not been studied for influenza vaccination. We assessed effectiveness and cost of C-R/R for increasing childhood influenza vaccination compared with usual care. METHODS: Within Colorado (CO) and New York (NY), random samples of primary care practices (pediatric, family medicine, and health center) were selected proportionate to where children are served-65 practices (N = 54,353 children) in CO; 101 practices (N = 65,777) in NY. We conducted 4-arm RCTs per state (1, 2, or 3 autodial reminders vs usual care), with randomization at the patient level within practices from 10/2016 to 1/2017. RESULTS: In CO, the maximum absolute difference in receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine was 1.7% between the 2 R/R group and control (adjusted risk ratio [ARR] of 1.06 [1.01, 1.10]); other R/R arms did not differ significantly. In NY, ARRs for the study arms versus control varied from 1.05 (1.01, 1.10) for 3 R/R to 1.06 (1.01, 1.11) for 1-2 R/R groups and maximum absolute increase in vaccination was 0.6%. In time-to-event analyses, study arm was a significant predictor of vaccination in CO (P = .001) but not in NY. Costs/child randomized to one message were $.17 in CO and $.23 in NY. CONCLUSIONS: C-R/R for influenza vaccine using autodial had low-level effects on increasing influenza rates in 2 states. Given the feasibility and low cost of C-R/R in previous trials, its utility for influenza should be re-examined using different modalities.

Supporting and sustaining centralized reminder/recall for immunizations: Qualitative insights from stakeholders.

Centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) is an evidence-based strategy for increasing vaccination rates that uses a population-level database such as a state immunization information system (IIS) to send notifications across large geographic areas. IISs are usually based in state public health departments, which could initiate C-R/R. While C-R/R is a promising strategy, the factors influencing its initiation and sustainment are not clear. Utilizing qualitative content analysis methodology and interviews with key stakeholders involved in or knowledgeable about C-R/R, we examined the characteristics of these initiatives and factors influencing their success. We identified and spoke with managers and senior leaders across IISs, health plans, health systems, pharmaceutical companies, and advocacy organizations and focused especially on C-R/R activities within IISs. Several considerations were determined important to C-R/R success: decision-making, stakeholder buy-in, partnerships, funding, data and technology, evaluation, and message content. Salient barriers were costs and lack of funding, poor contact data quality (i.e. telephone number, home address), and messaging that is either overly broad or too specific. Pertinent facilitators of C-R/R included notifying health providers in advance of an initiative, conducting a rigorous post-reminder/recall evaluation, and engaging a range of partners. Partnerships were important to stakeholders for multiple reasons including technical assistance, resource sharing, and sharing of best practices. Overall, our results illustrate the many opportunities to advance C-R/R through further collaboration within and across public health departments and potentially via public-private partnerships.

Potential Strategies to Achieve Universal Influenza Vaccination for Children: Provider Attitudes in Two States.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Provider perceptions on strategies to achieve universal vaccination are needed. We assessed the perceptions and attitudes of primary care providers across 2 states regarding 2 strategies to potentially bolster rates: centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R), such as reminder/recall (R/R) notices from state immunization registries, and influenza vaccination by complementary community vaccinators (CCVs), such as retail pharmacies, schools, and health departments. METHODS: We sent a mailed survey to a representative sample of providers across Colorado and New York. Questions addressed R/R activities for influenza vaccine, preferences and attitudes about the health department sending C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine, and attitudes about CCVs. Bivariate analyses assessed provider perceptions and compared perceptions by state. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 56% (n = 590/1052). Twenty-two percent of providers in Colorado and 33% in New York performed practice-based R/R for all patients during the 2015-16 influenza season. Eighty-one percent of providers in both states preferred the health department or had no preference for who sent C-R/R notices for influenza vaccine to their patients; most preferred to include their practice names on C-R/R messages. Many providers in both Colorado (75%) and New York (46%, P < .001) agreed that their patients like the option of having CCVs where children can receive influenza vaccine. Some providers expressed concerns regarding potential loss of income and/or difficulty documenting receipt of influenza vaccine at CCVs. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers support C-R/R, and many support CCVs to increase influenza vaccination rates. Collaborations between traditional primary care providers and CCVs might boost coverage.

Transcriptional organization of pneumococcal psrP-secY2A2 and impact of GtfA and GtfB deletion on PsrP-associated virulence properties.

Pneumococcal serine-rich repeat protein (PsrP) is a glycoprotein that mediates Streptococcus pneumoniae attachment to lung cells and promotes biofilm formation. Herein, we investigated the transcriptional organization of psrP-secY2A2, the 37-kbp pathogenicity island encoding PsrP and its accessory genes. PCR amplification of cDNA and RNA-seq analysis found psrP-secY2A2 to be minimally composed of three operons: psrP-glyA, glyB, and glyC-asp5. Transcription of all three operons was greatest during biofilm growth and immunoblot analyses confirmed increased PsrP production by biofilm pneumococci. Using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry we identified monomeric N-acetylglucosamine as the primary glycoconjugate present on a recombinant intracellular version of PsrP, i.e. PsrP1-734. This finding was validated by immunoblot using lectins with known carbohydrate specificities. We subsequently deleted gtfA and gtfB, the GTFs thought to be responsible for addition of O-linked N-acetylglucosamine, and tested for PsrP and its associated virulence properties. These deletions negatively affected our ability to detect PsrP1-734 in bacterial whole cell lysates. Moreover, S. pneumoniae mutants lacking these genes pheno-copied the psrP mutant and were attenuated for: biofilm formation, adhesion to lung epithelial cells, and pneumonia in mice. Our studies identify the transcriptional organization of psrP-secY2A2 and show the indispensable role of GtfA and GtfB on PsrP-mediated pneumococcal virulence.

Centralized Reminder/Recall to Increase Immunization Rates in Young Children: How Much Bang for the Buck?

OBJECTIVE: We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of: 1) centralized reminder/recall (C-R/R) using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) versus practice-based reminder/recall (PB-R/R) approaches to increase immunization rates; 2) different levels of C-R/R intensity; and 3) C-R/R with versus without the name of the child's provider. METHODS: We conducted 3 sequential cluster-randomized trials involving children aged 19 to 25 months in 15 Colorado counties in March 2013 (trial 1), October 2013 (trial 2), and May 2014 (trial 3). In C-R/R counties, the intensity of the intervention decreased sequentially in trials 1 through 3, from 3 to 1 recall messages. In PB-R/R counties, practices were offered training using CIIS and financial support. The percentage of children with up-to-date (UTD) vaccinations was compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between C-R/R versus PB-R/R and UTD rates. RESULTS: C-R/R was more effective in trials 1 to 3 (relative risk = 1.11; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.20; P = .009). Effectiveness did not decrease with decreasing intervention intensity (P = .59). Costs decreased with decreasing intensity in the C-R/R arm, from $18.72 per child brought UTD in trial 1 to $10.11 in trial 3. Costs were higher and more variable in the PB-R/R arm, ranging from $20.63 to $237.81 per child brought UTD. C-R/R was significantly more effective if the child's practice name was included (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: C-R/R was more effective and cost-effective than PB-R/R for increasing UTD rates in young children and was most effective if messages included the child's provider name. Three reminders were not more effective than one, which may be explained by the increasing accuracy of contact information in CIIS over the course of the trials.

Provider Preferences and Experiences With a Countywide Centralized Collaborative Reminder/Recall for Childhood Immunizations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess among providers in 7 Colorado counties where a collaborative centralized reminder/recall (CC-R/R) using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS) was performed: 1) preferences about CC-R/R conducted by the public health department (PHD); 2) preferences for future CC-R/R for different vaccines with and without practice names; and 3) experiences with including their name on CC-R/R notices. METHODS: A mailed survey was sent to all primary care sites where CC-R/R had been previously conducted. Respondents self-identified as the "the person in charge of immunization policy within the practice." RESULTS: Overall response rate was 69.9% (160 of 229). Twenty-one were removed because they did not provide immunizations to children. Among respondents, 65.0% were from family medicine and 26.3% from pediatric practices; 32.1% physicians or midlevel providers; 34.3% nurses or medical assistants; and 33.6% office managers. Taking into account all issues, 57.6% were "okay" with either the PHD or their practice conducting recall; 27.3% preferred the PHD; and 14.4% preferred their practice conduct R/R. Fifty-six percent of active CIIS practices (n = 95) included their practice's name on CC-R/R notices. Interest in future CC-R/R for different ages and vaccines was strongly related to whether reminders included the practice name: 77.8% for routine immunizations in 4- to 6-year-olds; 74.8% for immunizations for 0- to 3-year-olds; 73.3% for vaccines administered to adolescents; and 59.7% for influenza (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most practices are accepting of the PHD centrally conducting R/R, but most prefer collaboration that includes their name. Given the success and support of this method, it should be more widely adopted.

School-Based Health Centers as Medical Homes: Parents' and Adolescents' Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Preventive health services are underutilized by US adolescents, especially those from low-income populations. School-based health centers (SBHCs) have been endorsed as primary medical homes for adolescents. This study was undertaken to determine how adolescent SBHC users and their parents perceive SBHCs, particularly whether SBHCs fulfill each of the elements of a medical home as defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics. METHODS: Middle and high school adolescents who had been enrolled in a SBHC in a major metropolitan school district for a minimum of 1 year were interviewed about their perceptions of and experiences with SBHCs. English- and Spanish-speaking parents of SBHC-enrolled adolescents also participated in focus groups on this topic. RESULTS: Four focus groups with parents (n = 30) and 62 interviews with adolescents were completed. Both adolescents and parents indicated satisfaction with the quality and utilization of SBHC services, reporting that SBHCs were highly accessible and family centered. Many students preferred to access care at their SBHC instead of their primary care practice because of the convenience, perceived trustworthiness, compassion, and high quality of care at the SBHC. A few parents reported unmet medical needs from their adolescent's SBHC, and some differences emerged between English- and Spanish-speaking parents. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents' and parents' perceptions of care received at these SBHCs are consistent with features of the medical home model. These findings suggest that SBHCs can provide coordinated, compassionate care to students in a large, urban school system and may be perceived as more accessible than traditional primary care settings.

Collaborative centralized reminder/recall notification to increase immunization rates among young children: a comparative effectiveness trial.

IMPORTANCE: Reminder/recall notifications used by primary care practices increase the rates of childhood immunizations, but fewer than 20% of primary care practitioners nationally deliver such reminders. A reminder/recall notification conducted centrally by health departments in collaboration with primary care practices may reduce practice burden, reach children without a primary care practitioner, and decrease the cost of reminders/recalls. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative centralized (CC) vs practice-based (PB) reminder/recall approaches using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a randomized pragmatic trial from September 7, 2012, through March 17, 2013, including 18,235 children aged 19 to 35 months in 15 Colorado counties. INTERVENTIONS: In CC counties, children who needed at least 1 immunization were sent as many as 4 reminders/recalls by mail or autodialed telephone calls by the CIIS. Primary care practices in these counties were given the option of endorsing the reminder/recall notification by adding the practice name to the message. In PB counties, primary care practices were invited to web-based reminder/recall training and offered financial support for sending notifications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Documentation of any new immunization within 6 months constituted the primary outcome; achieving up-to-date (UTD) immunization status was secondary. We assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of each approach and used a generalized linear mixed-effects model to assess the effect of the intervention on outcomes. RESULTS: In PB counties, 24 of 308 primary care practices (7.8%) attended reminder/recall training and 2 primary care practices (0.6%) endorsed reminder/recall notifications. Within CC counties, 129 of 229 practices (56.3%) endorsed the reminder/recall letter. Documentation rates for at least 1 immunization were 26.9% for CC vs 21.7% for PB counties (P < .001); 12.8% vs 9.3% of patients, respectively, achieved UTD status (P < .001). The effect of CC counties on children's UTD status was greater when the reminder/recall notification was endorsed by the primary care practice (19.2% vs 9.8%; P < .001). The total cost of the CC reminder/recall was $28 620 or $11.75 per child for any new immunization and $24.72 per child achieving UTD status; the total cost to the 2 practices that conducted PB reminders/recalls was $74.00 per child for any immunization and $124.45 per child achieving UTD status. The modeling resulted in an adjusted odds ratio of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.16-1.48) for any new immunization in CC vs PB counties. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A CC reminder/recall notification was more effective and more cost-effective than a PB system, although the effect size was modest. Endorsement by practices may further increase the effectiveness of CC reminder/recall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01557621.

Novel immunization reminder/recall approaches: rural and urban differences in parent perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the following among parents of young children: (1) preferences about the source of immunization reminder/recall (R/R) messages, (2) the degree of acceptability of different R/R modalities, and (3) factors that influence preferences, including rural and urban characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a survey among parents of children 19 to 35 months old who needed ≥1 immunization according to the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). Equal numbers of urban and rural respondents were randomly selected. Up to 4 surveys were mailed to each parent who had a valid address. RESULTS: After removing invalid addresses, the response rate was 55% (334 of 607). Half of parents (49.7%) had no preference about whether the public health department or their child's doctor sent reminders. Urban parents were more likely to prefer R/R come from their child's doctor (46.7%) compared to rural parents (33.7%), P = .003. Mail was the preferred R/R method (57.7%), then telephone (17.0%), e-mail (12.7%), and text message (10.7%). Although not preferred, 60.1% reported it would be acceptable to receive R/R by e-mail and 46.2% by text message. Factors associated with preferring to receive R/R from their child's doctor were urban residence and educational level of college graduate or greater. CONCLUSIONS: A large portion of parents are willing to be reminded about vaccinations by their health department rather than their child's provider and via novel modalities, such as e-mail or text messaging. Urbanicity and higher educational level were associated with preferring that R/R come from a provider.

Provider attitudes toward public-private collaboration to improve immunization reminder/recall: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess primary care providers' current reminder/recall practices, preferences for collaboration with health departments in reminder/recall efforts, attitudes toward practice-based and population-based reminder/recall, and experiences with a population-based reminder/recall intervention. METHODS: Providers responsible for making decisions about immunization delivery at all primary care practices that participate in the Colorado Immunization Information System were surveyed. Data collection was preceded by an intervention in which half of 14 counties received a population-based reminder/recall intervention conducted by the health department. Practice staff involved in immunization activities were then selected for semistructured telephone interviews that were based on the location of their practice within specified strata, including whether they were in the intervention counties, urban/rural location, and practice type. RESULTS: A total of 282 (73.6%) of 383 of providers responded to the survey, and 253 who administered vaccines to children 19 to 35 months were retained; 82 staff members at 36 practices were interviewed. Providers' preferences for who should conduct reminder/recall were almost evenly split, with slightly more indicating that it should be conducted by the health department. Cost and feasibility issues were perceived barriers to conducting practice-based recall, particularly among urban practices. Support for population-based reminder/recall was highest among rural practices. Concern about perceived inaccuracies in immunization registry data was the major barrier to conducting population-based reminder/recall. The population-based intervention did not create an undue burden on practices. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative approach to reminder/recall involving both providers and health departments is preferable for many providers and may be a viable solution to the barriers of practice-based reminder/recall.

Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based recall (Pop-recall) versus practice-based recall (PCP-recall) at increasing immunizations among preschool children. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial involved children aged 19 to 35 months needing immunizations in 8 rural and 6 urban Colorado counties. In Pop-recall counties, recall was conducted centrally using the Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS). In PCP-recall counties, practices were invited to attend webinar training using CIIS and offered financial support for mailings. The percentage of up-to-date (UTD) and vaccine documentation were compared 6 months after recall. A mixed-effects model assessed the association between intervention and whether a child became UTD. RESULTS: Ten of 195 practices (5%) implemented recall in PCP-recall counties. Among children needing immunizations, 18.7% became UTD in Pop-recall versus 12.8% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001); 31.8% had documented receipt of 1 or more vaccines in Pop-recall versus 22.6% in PCP-recall counties (P < .001). Relative risk estimates from multivariable modeling were 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10, 1.37) for becoming UTD and 1.26 (95% CI = 1.15, 1.38) for receipt of any vaccine. Costs for Pop-recall versus PCP-recall were $215 versus $1981 per practice and $17 versus $62 per child brought UTD. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based recall conducted centrally was more effective and cost-effective at increasing immunization rates in preschool children.

Parental views of school-located delivery of adolescent vaccines.

PURPOSE: School-located immunization has the potential to increase adolescent vaccination rates. This study assessed parents' attitudes toward administration of adolescent vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis [Tdap], meningococcal conjugate [MenACWY], human papillomavirus [HPV], and influenza) at school. METHODS: We conducted a mailed survey of parents of sixth graders from July 2009 to September 2009 in three urban/suburban (Aurora, CO) middle schools assessing barriers and facilitators to school vaccination and willingness to consent for vaccines at school. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses examined the association of parent and student characteristics with parent willingness to consent to school-located vaccination. RESULTS: The response rate was 62% (500/806). Parents reported 82% of teens had a regular site of health care, and 17% were uninsured. Overall, 71% of parents would consent for vaccines at school; 72% for Tdap, 71% for MenACWY, 53% for HPV (parents of girls), and 67% for seasonal influenza. Among parents who answered it was important their child receives recommended vaccines, (88%) would consent for influenza vaccine at school, compared with Tdap (76%), MenACWY (74%), and HPV (72%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated parents of uninsured teens (odds ratio [OR] 3.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40, 12.23), who were unmarried (OR 1.90, 95% CI: 1.14, 3.25), or had a child attending the school with the highest percent eligibility for free/reduced lunch (OR 2.75, 95% CI: 1.36, 5.80) were significantly more willing to consent for vaccines at school. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest parents are generally supportive of school-located vaccine delivery, particularly for annual influenza vaccination and for uninsured and low-income adolescents.

Effectiveness and cost of immunization recall at school-based health centers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness of recall for immunizations has not been examined in the setting of school-based health centers (SBHCs). We assessed (1) immunization rates achieved with recall among sixth-grade girls (demonstration study); (2) effectiveness of recall among sixth-grade boys (randomized controlled trial [RCT]); and (3) cost of conducting recall in SBHCs. METHODS: During October 2008 through March 2009, in 4 Denver public SBHCs, we conducted (1) a demonstration study among 265 girls needing ≥ 1 recommended adolescent vaccine and (2) an RCT among 264 boys needing vaccines, with half randomized to recall and half receiving usual care. Immunization rates for recommended adolescent vaccines were assessed 6 months after recall. First dose costs were assessed by direct observation and examining invoices. RESULTS: At the end of the demonstration study, 77% of girls had received ≥ 1 vaccine and 45% had received all needed adolescent vaccines. Rates of receipt among those needing each of the vaccines were 68% (160/236) for tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine, 57% (142/248) for quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine, and 59% (149/253) for the first human papillomavirus vaccine. At the end of the RCT, 66% of recalled boys had received ≥ 1 vaccine and 59% had received all study vaccines, compared with 45% and 36%, respectively, of the control group (P < .001). Cost of conducting recall ranged from $1.12 to $6.87 per recalled child immunized. CONCLUSIONS: SBHC-based recall was effective in improving immunization rates for all adolescent vaccines, with effects sizes exceeding those achieved with younger children in practice settings.

Effectiveness and net cost of reminder/recall for adolescent immunizations.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of reminder/recall (R/R) for immunizing adolescents in private pediatric practices and to describe the associated costs and revenues. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 4 private pediatric practices in metropolitan Denver. In each practice, 400 adolescents aged 11 to 18 years who had not received 1 or more targeted vaccinations (tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis, meningococcal conjugate, or first dose of human papillomavirus vaccine for female patients) were randomly selected and randomized to intervention (2 letters and 2 telephone calls) or control (usual care) groups. Primary outcomes were receipt of >1 targeted vaccines and receipt of all targeted vaccines 6 months postintervention. We calculated net additional revenue for each additional adolescent who received at least 1 targeted vaccine and for those who received all targeted vaccines. RESULTS: Eight hundred adolescents were randomized to the intervention and 800 to the control group. Baseline rates of having already received tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis, meningococcal conjugate, and first dose of human papillomavirus vaccine before R/R ranged from 33% to 54%. Postintervention, the intervention group had significantly higher proportions of receipt of at least 1 targeted vaccine (47.1% vs 34.6%, P < .0001) and receipt of all targeted vaccines (36.2% vs 25.2%, P < .0001) compared with the control group. Three practices had positive net revenues from R/R; 1 showed net losses. CONCLUSIONS: R/R was successful at increasing immunization rates in adolescents and effect sizes were comparable to those in younger children. Practices conducting R/R may benefit financially if they can generate additional well-child care visits and keep supply costs low.