Addressing adverse social determinants of health in pediatric primary care: Study protocol for a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial in two national pediatric practice-based research networks.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence linking social determinants of health (SDOH) to child health outcomes has prompted widespread recommendations for pediatricians to screen and refer for adverse SDOH at primary care visits. Yet there is little evidence to date demonstrating the effectiveness of practice-based SDOH screening and referral interventions on increasing family engagement with resources. This hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial aims to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a low-touch implementation strategy in order to facilitate dissemination of an existing SDOH screening and referral system (WE CARE) and demonstrate its effectiveness and sustainability in various pediatric practices. METHODS: We recruited eighteen pediatric practices in fourteen US states through two pediatric practice-based research networks. For this stepped wedge cluster RCT, practices serve as their own controls during the Usual Care phase and implement WE CARE during the intervention phase via one of two randomized implementation strategies: self-directed, pre-recorded webinar vs. study team-facilitated, live webinar. We collect data at practice, clinician/staff, and parent levels to assess outcomes grounded in the Proctor Conceptual Model of Implementation Research. We use generalized mixed effects models and differences in proportions to compare rates of resource referrals by implementation strategy, and intention-to-treat analysis to compare odds of engagement with new resources among families enrolled in the Usual Care vs. WE CARE phases. DISCUSSION: Findings from this trial may inform decisions about broader dissemination of SDOH screening systems into a diverse spectrum of pediatric practices across the US and potentially minimize the impact of adverse SDOH on children and families.

Examination of Text Message Plans and Baseline Usage of Families Enrolled in a Text Message Influenza Vaccine Reminder Trial: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) is quickly expanding as a method of health promotion, but some interventions may not be familiar or comfortable for potential users. SMS text messaging has been investigated as a low-cost, accessible way to provide vaccine reminders. Most (97%) US adults own a cellphone and of those adults most use SMS text messaging. However, understanding patterns of SMS text message plan type and use in diverse primary care populations needs more investigation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to use a survey to examine baseline SMS text messaging and data plan patterns among families willing to accept SMS text message vaccine reminders. METHODS: As part of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded national study (Flu2Text) conducted during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons, families of children needing a second seasonal influenza vaccine dose were recruited in pediatric primary care offices at the time of their first dose. Practices were from the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) research network, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Columbia University. A survey was administered via telephone (Season 1) or electronically (Season 2) at enrollment. Standardized (adjusted) proportions for SMS text message plan type and texting frequency were calculated using logistic regression that was adjusted for child and caregiver demographics. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 1439 participants (69% of enrolled). The mean caregiver age was 32 (SD 6) years, and most children (n=1355, 94.2%) were aged 6-23 months. Most (n=1357, 94.3%) families were English-speaking. Most (n=1331, 92.8%) but not all participants had an unlimited SMS text messaging plan and sent or received texts at least once daily (n=1313, 91.5%). SMS text messaging plan type and use at baseline was uniform across most but not all subgroups. However, there were some differences in the study population's SMS text messaging plan type and usage. Caregivers who wanted Spanish SMS text messages were less likely than those who chose English to have an unlimited SMS text messaging plan (n=61, 86.7% vs n=1270, 94%; risk difference -7.2%, 95% CI -27.1 to -1.8). There were no significant differences in having an unlimited plan associated with child's race, ethnicity, age, health status, insurance type, or caregiver education level. SMS text messaging use at baseline was not uniform across all subgroups. Nearly three-quarters (n=1030, 71.9%) of participants had received some form of SMS text message from their doctor's office; most common were appointment reminders (n=1014, 98.4%), prescription (n=300, 29.1%), and laboratory notifications (n=117, 11.4%). Even the majority (n=64, 61.5%) of those who did not have unlimited plans and who texted less than daily (n=72, 59%) reported receipt of these SMS text messages. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, most participants had access to unlimited SMS text messaging plans and texted at least once daily. However, infrequent texting and lack of access to an unlimited SMS text messaging plan did not preclude enrolling to receive SMS text message reminders in pediatric primary care settings.

Pediatric Practices' Perceptions of Text Message Communication with Families: An American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) Study.

Background: Text messages can be an effective and low-cost mechanism for patient reminders; however, they are yet to be consistently integrated into pediatric primary care. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore pediatric primary care clinician and staff perceptions of pediatric office text message communication with families. Methods: As part of the National Institutes of Health-funded Flu2Text randomized controlled trial of second-dose influenza vaccine text message reminders, we conducted 7 focus groups and 4 individual interviews in July-August 2019 with primary care pediatric clinicians and staff (n = 39). Overall, 10 Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) pediatric practices in 10 states were selected using stratified sampling. Semi-structured discussion guides included perspectives on possible uses, perceived usefulness, and ease of use of text messages; practices' current text messaging infrastructure; and perceived barriers/facilitators to future use of texting. Two investigators independently coded and analyzed transcripts based on the technology acceptance model using NVIVO 12 Plus (intercoder reliability, K = 0.86). Results: Overall, participants were supportive of text reminders for the second-dose influenza vaccine, other vaccines, and appointments and perceived texting as a preferred method of communication for caregivers. Health information privacy and patient confidentiality were the main concerns cited. Only respondents from practices with no internal appointment text message reminder system prior to the study expressed concerns about technology implementation logistics, time, and cost. Conclusion: Text message reminders, for various uses, appear to be well accepted among a group of geographically widespread pediatric practices after participation in a trial of influenza vaccine text message reminders. Privacy, confidentiality, and resource barriers need to be addressed to facilitate successful implementation.

Text Message Reminders for the Second Dose of Influenza Vaccine for Children: An RCT.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Among children requiring 2 influenza doses in a given season, second dose receipt nearly halves the odds of influenza. Nationally, many children do not receive both needed doses. This study sought to compare the effectiveness of text message reminders with embedded interactive educational information versus usual care on receipt and timeliness of the second dose of influenza vaccine. METHODS: This trial took place over the 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019 influenza seasons among 50 pediatric primary care offices across 24 states primarily from the American Academy of Pediatrics' Pediatric Research in Office Settings practice-based research network. Caregiver-child dyads of children 6 months to 8 years in need of a second influenza vaccination that season were individually randomized 1:1 into intervention versus usual care, stratified by age and language within each practice. Intervention caregivers received automated, personalized text messages, including educational information. Second dose receipt by April 30 (season end) and by day 42 (2 weeks after second dose due date) were assessed using Mantel Haenszel methods by practice and language. Analyses were intention to treat. RESULTS: Among 2086 dyads enrolled, most children were 6 to 23 months and half publicly insured. Intervention children were more likely to receive a second dose by season end (83.8% versus 80.9%; adjusted risk difference (ARD) 3.8%; 95% confidence interval [0.1 to 7.5]) and day 42 (62.4% versus 55.7%; ARD 8.3% [3.6 to 13.0]). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale trial of primary care pediatric practices across the United States, text message reminders were effective in promoting increased and timelier second dose influenza vaccine receipt.

Vaccine hesitancy and influenza beliefs among parents of children requiring a second dose of influenza vaccine in a season: An American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) study.

To receive adequate protection against influenza, some children 6 months through 8 y old need two doses of influenza vaccine in a given season. Currently, only half of those receiving the first dose receive a second. Our objective was to assess vaccine hesitancy and influenza disease and vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among caregivers of children who received the first of their two needed doses. As part of a national-randomized control trial of second dose text-message influenza vaccine reminders (2017-2018 season), a telephone survey collected caregiver and index child demographic information. Each child had received the first of two needed influenza vaccine doses. Caregivers completed a measure of general vaccine hesitancy - the five-question Parent Attitudes About Childhood Vaccines Survey Tool (PACV-5) - and questions about influenza infection and vaccine. We assessed associations between participant demographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy, and influenza beliefs and calculated the standardized proportion of caregivers endorsing each outcome using logistic regression. Analyses included responses from 256 participants from 36 primary care practices in 24 states. Some caregivers (11.7%) reported moderate/high vaccine hesitancy and many had misperceptions about influenza disease and vaccine. In multivariable models, no single variable was consistently associated with inaccurate knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. These results demonstrate that caregivers whose children received the first dose of influenza vaccine may still be vaccine hesitant and have inaccurate influenza beliefs. Pediatricians should consider broadly addressing inaccurate beliefs and promoting vaccination even after caregivers agree to the first dose.