Adolescent immunization practices: a national survey of US physicians.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent immunization rates remain low. Hence, a better understanding of the factors that influence adolescent immunization is needed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the adolescent immunization practices of US physicians. DESIGN AND SETTING: A 24-item survey mailed in 1997 to a national sample of 1480 pediatricians and family physicians living in the United States, randomly selected from the American Medical Association's Master List of Physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Of 1110 physicians (75%) who responded, 761 met inclusion criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: Immunization practices and policies, use of tracking and recall, opinions about school-based immunizations, and reasons for not providing particular immunizations to eligible adolescents. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of physicians reported using protocols for adolescent immunization, and 82% recommended hepatitis B immunization for all eligible adolescents. Those who did not routinely immunize adolescents often cited insufficient insurance coverage for immunizations. While 42% of physicians reported that they review the immunization status of adolescent patients at acute illness visits, only 24% immunized eligible adolescents during such visits. Twenty-one percent used immunization tracking and recall systems. Though 84% preferred that immunizations be administered at their practice, 71% of physicians considered schools, and 63% considered teen clinics to be acceptable alternative adolescent immunization sites. However, many had concerns about continuity of care for adolescents receiving immunizations in school. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians supported adolescent immunization efforts. Barriers preventing adolescent immunization included financial barriers, record scattering, lack of tracking and recall, and missed opportunities. School-based immunization programs were acceptable to most physicians, despite concerns about continuity of care. Further research is needed to determine whether interventions that have successfully increased infant immunization rates are also effective for adolescents.

Consent for adolescent vaccination: issues and current practices.

To identify and describe implementation of state-level informed consent requirements for adolescent immunizations, current state regulations on informed consent and immunization services for children and adolescents were identified through the LEXIS-NEXIS legal data base. Regulations were coded for informed consent characteristics, consent exemptions, and current immunization requirements. State immunization program directors, project managers, and state hepatitis coordinators were surveyed to catalogue how regulations were implemented and document new policies or regulations under consideration. Parental consent for immunizations is standard practice in 43 states. Most states (n = 34) require separate consent for each injection when more than one injection is required to complete a vaccination, but only for a limited number of medical procedures. Nine states allow adolescents to self-consent for hepatitis B vaccination in sexually transmitted disease clinics and family planning clinics as part of the exemption for minors' receipt of sexual health services. Most states require consent for vaccination services provided to adolescents. Parental consent requirements are a potential barrier to vaccinating adolescents in some settings.

Immunization of adolescents: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Medical Association.

This report concerning the immunization of adolescents (ie, persons 11-21 years of age, as defined by the American Medical Association [AMA] and the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]) is a supplement to previous publications (ie, MMWR 1994;43[No. RR-1] 1-38; the AAP 1994 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases; Summary of Policy Recommendations for Periodic Health Examination, August 1996 from the American Academy of Family Physicians [AAFP]; and AMA Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services [GAPS]: Recommendations and Rationale). This report presents a new strategy to improve the delivery of vaccination services to adolescents and to integrate recommendations for vaccination with other preventive services provided to adolescents. This new strategy emphasizes vaccination of adolescents 11-12 years of age by establishing a routine visit to their health-care providers. Specifically, the purposes of this visit are to a) vaccinate adolescents who have not been previously vaccinated with varicella virus vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, or the second dose of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine; b) provide a booster dose of tetanus and diphtheria toxoids; c) administer other vaccines that may be recommended for certain adolescents; and d) provide other recommended preventive services. The recommendations for vaccination of adolescents are based on new or current information for each vaccine. The most recent recommendations from ACIP, AAP, AAFP, and AMA concerning specific vaccines and delivery of preventive services should be consulted for details.

Adolescent immunization: focus on implementation.

On March 11-12, 1996, a workshop on how to implement new adolescent immunization (AI) recommendations was held in Atlanta, Ga. Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it was a collaborative effort of the National Immunization Program, the Division of Adolescent and School Health/National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and the Hepatitis Branch/National Center for Infectious Diseases. The workshop brought together organizations and individuals interested in adolescent health and immunizations so they could address how new AI recommendations can be implemented most effectively. This article offers an overview of their discussions and suggestions, including issues of cooperation, education, legislation, and AI program development among health provider organizations, health department, schools, community groups and various other agencies relating to adolescent health services.

Immunization of adolescents.

This report concerning the immunization of adolescents (i.e., persons 11 to 21 years of age, as defined by the American Medical Association [AMA] and the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP]) is a supplement to previous publications (i.e., MMWR 1994;43[No. RR-1]1-38; the AAP 1994 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases; Summary of Policy Recommendations for Periodic Health Examination, August 1996 from the American Academy of Family Physicians; and AMA Guidelines for Adolescent Preventive Services: Recommendations and Rationale). This report presents a new strategy to improve the delivery of vaccination services to adolescents and to integrate recommendations for vaccination with other preventive services provided to adolescents. This new strategy emphasizes vaccination of adolescents 11 to 12 years of age by establishing a routine visit to their health care providers. Specifically, the purposes of this visit are to (1) vaccinate adolescents who have not been previously vaccinated with varicella virus vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, or the second dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine; (2) provide a booster dose of tetanus and diphtheria toxoids; (3) administer other vaccines that may be recommended for certain adolescents, and (4) provide other recommended preventive services. The recommendations for vaccination of adolescents are based on new or current information for each vaccine.

Transmission of hepatitis B virus to multiple patients from a surgeon without evidence of inadequate infection control.

BACKGROUND: Although about 1 percent of surgeons are infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), transmission from surgeons to patients is thought to be uncommon. In July 1992, a 47-year-old woman became ill with acute hepatitis B after undergoing a thymectomy in which a thoracic-surgery resident who had had acute hepatitis B six months earlier assisted. METHODS: To determine whether the surgeon transmitted HBV to this patient and others, we conducted chart reviews, interviews, and serologic testing of thoracic-surgery patients at the two hospitals where the surgeon worked from July 1991 to July 1992. Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) subtypes and DNA sequences from the surgeon and from infected patients were determined. RESULTS: Of 144 susceptible patients in whose surgery the infected surgeon participated, 19 had evidence of recent HBV infection (13 percent). One of the hospitals was selected for additional study, and none of the 124 susceptible patients of the other thoracic surgeons at this hospital had evidence of recent HBV infection (relative risk, infinity; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.7 to infinity). No evidence was found for any common source of HBV other than the infected surgeon. The HBsAg subtype and the partial HBV DNA sequences from the surgeon were identical to those in the infected patients. Transmission of the infection was associated with cardiac transplantation (relative risk, 4.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 15.5) but not with other surgical procedures. The surgeon was positive for hepatitis B e antigen and had a high serum HBV DNA concentration (15 ng per milliliter). Our investigations identified no deficiencies in the surgeon's infection-control practices. CONCLUSIONS: In this outbreak there was surgeon-to-patient HBV transmission despite apparent compliance with recommended infection-control practices. We could not identify any specific events that led to transmission.