A latent class analysis of factors influencing preferences for infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventives among pregnant people in the United States.

A maternal vaccine and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) were recently approved to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We identified subgroups of pregnant people with different preferences for RSV preventives and respondent characteristics associated with subgroup membership. An online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was conducted among US pregnant people. RSV preventive attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection during RSV season, injection recipient/timing, preventive type (vaccine or mAb), and type of visit required to receive injection. In DCE choice tasks, pregnant people selected between two hypothetical preventive profiles with varying attribute-levels and a no-preventive option. Logistic regression, including latent class analysis (LCA), was used to analyze the data. Of 992 pregnant people (mean age: 30.0 years), 60.3% were expecting their second/later birth. LCA identified three preference subgroups: 'Effectiveness' (preventive choice mostly driven by increases in effectiveness; 51.4% class membership probability), 'Season' (preventive choice mostly driven by improvement in duration of protection during the RSV season; 39.2% class membership probability), and 'No Preventive' (frequently chose no-preventive option; 9.4% class membership probability). 'Effectiveness' and 'Season' preferred maternal vaccine over mAb; mAb was preferred by 'No Preventive.' Perceiving RSV as serious for infants, higher health literacy, and lower household income were associated with 'Effectiveness.' Perceiving RSV as serious for pregnant people was associated with 'Season.' Perceiving RSV to not be serious for pregnant people and not being employed were associated with 'No Preventive.' Subgroups of pregnant people vary in preferences for RSV preventives. Most pregnant people preferred a maternal vaccine, although some may be more willing to accept alternative preventive options.

Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

Preferences for Adult Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations Among United States Health Care Providers.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for all adults aged ≥ 65 years, with a commitment to revisit the recommendation for PCV13 because of declining vaccine-type disease. The Evidence-to-Recommendation framework used by the ACIP includes review of evidence regarding feasibility and stakeholder acceptability, but no surveys of vaccinator preferences have been published in the literature. METHODS: Physicians (N = 700), physician assistants (N = 100), pharmacists (N = 100), and nurse practitioners (N = 100) who recently prescribed, administered, or recommended adult pneumococcal vaccine were surveyed in March 2018. Object-case best-worst scaling was used to assess preferences among potential recommendation scenarios: retaining the then-current 2014 recommendation without a scheduled re-evaluation, retaining with a scheduled re-evaluation, revising PCV13 to Category B (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), removing PCV13 (retaining PPSV23 as Category A), and removing both PCV13 and PPSV23. RESULTS: Providers' most preferred recommendations were retaining the 2014 recommendation with another planned re-evaluation (52.6%) and retaining the then-current recommendation without planned re-evaluation (40.0%). Few preferred changing PCV13 to Category B (3.2%), removing PCV13 (3.7%), or removing both pneumococcal vaccines (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of vaccinators surveyed preferred to retain the 2014 recommendation, either with another scheduled reassessment or indefinitely. FUNDING: Pfizer, Inc.

Missed doses of oral antihyperglycemic medications in US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: prevalence and self-reported reasons.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to antihyperglycemic medication is thought to be suboptimal, but the proportion of patients missing doses, the number of doses missed, and reasons for missing are not well described. This survey was conducted to estimate the prevalence of and reasons for missed doses of oral antihyperglycemic medications among US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and to explore associations between missed doses and health outcomes. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional patient survey. Respondents were contacted via a commercial survey panel and completed an on-line questionnaire via the Internet. Respondents provided information about their use of oral antihyperglycemic medications including doses missed in the prior 4 weeks, personal characteristics, and health outcomes. Weights were calculated to project the prevalence to the US adult population with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Outcomes were compared according to number of doses missed in the past 4 weeks using bivariate statistics and generalized linear models. RESULTS: Approximately 30% of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus reported missing or reducing ≥1 dose of oral antihyperglycemic medication in the prior 4 weeks. Accidental missing was more commonly reported than purposeful skipping, with forgetting the most commonly reported reason. The timing of missed doses suggested respondents had also forgotten about doses missed, so the prevalence of missed doses is likely higher than reported. Outcomes were poorer among those who reported missing three or more doses in the prior 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus miss doses of their oral antihyperglycemic medications.

Symptoms and Association with Health Outcomes in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Results of a US Patient Survey.

Background. A variety of symptoms have been reported, but the prevalence of specific symptoms in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), how they are related to one another, and their impact on patient reported outcomes is not well understood. Objective. To describe how symptoms of RRMS cooccur and their impact on patient-reported outcomes. Methods. Individuals who reported a physician diagnosis of RRMS in a large general health survey in the United States indicated the symptoms they experience because of RRMS and completed validated scales, including the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire and either the SF-12v2 or SF-36v2. Symptom clusters were identified through hierarchical cluster analysis, and the relationship between clusters and outcomes was assessed through regression. Results. Fatigue, difficulty walking, and numbness were the most commonly reported symptoms. Seven symptom clusters were identified, and several were significantly related to patient reported outcomes. Pain, muscle spasms, and stiffness formed a cluster strongly related to physical quality of life; depression was strongly related to mental quality of life and cognitive difficulty was associated with work impairment. Conclusions. Symptoms in RRMS show a strong relationship with quality of life and should be taken into consideration in treatment decisions and evaluation of treatment success.

Vaccinating to help ourselves and others.

BACKGROUND: Many behaviors affect not only the self but also others. The utility of a vaccination to each individual depends on population immunity, the cumulative result of individual vaccination decisions. However, little is known about how the benefit to others influences vaccination decisions. METHODS: In a series of 3 experiments (N = 292, 316, and 299) using hypothetical scenarios and college student respondents, we tested whether the vaccination decisions of individuals were sensitive to the level of immunity in the population when it had implications for either altruistic or free-riding vaccination behavior. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that decisions of individuals were sensitive to opportunities both to free ride by refusing vaccination and to vaccinate altruistically. Although individuals were most willing to get vaccinated when they were at risk themselves, they were also sensitive to the amount of good they could do for others. This altruistic sensitivity was strongest when individuals were not vulnerable to the disease themselves. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective vaccination strategies, from a public health perspective, often entail vaccinating the disease transmitters rather than those who are most vulnerable. Consequently, those who bear the burden of vaccination and those who benefit are not the same individuals. Thus, effective vaccination campaigns require that disease transmitters vaccinate even when it is not in their self-interest to do so. Our results suggest that it may be possible to encourage vaccination by appealing to altruistic motives.