Shared Decision-Making About Returning to Sport After Recovery From Pediatric Concussion: Clinician Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Describe how sports medicine clinicians support decision making about sport participation after concussion recovery with adolescent patients and their parents. Specific areas of inquiry related to how clinicians framed the decision, what factors they considered in how they approached the decision process, and how they navigated discordance within families. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Tertiary care sports medicine clinics at 4 children's hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Individual interviews were conducted with 17 clinicians practicing in sports medicine settings. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Semi-structured interviews explored clinician approaches to supporting decision making, with the question guide informed by components of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. RESULTS: Clinicians routinely incorporated aspects of shared decision making (SDM) into their conversations with families. This included ensuring all parties were informed about risk and aligned behind a shared value of adolescent well-being. Mediation strategies were used to manage discordance between adolescents and their parents, and between parents. These strategies aimed to facilitate a decision that was adolescent centered. When clinicians believed that there was a medical benefit to modifying the adolescent's sport participation practices, or when they did not believe the athlete was psychologically ready to return to the sport in which they were injured, they initiated conversations about alternative activities. In such situations, they used persuasive communication practices to encourage families to strongly consider this option. CONCLUSION: The strengths and strategies used by sports medicine clinicians in this study provide a foundation for guidance or intervention development aimed at supporting SDM after concussion with adolescents and their families.

Vaccine Confidence as Critical to Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

Vaccine confidence is a belief that vaccines work, are safe, and are part of a trustworthy medical system. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of the public's confidence in vaccines and the vaccine enterprise, limiting the public health impact of vaccination. In this review, we examine the critical nature of vaccine confidence to pandemic preparedness and response.

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Communication and Uptake.

Vaccines have led to a significant decrease in rates of vaccine-preventable diseases and have made a significant impact on the health of children. However, some parents express concerns about vaccine safety and the necessity of vaccines. The concerns of parents range from hesitancy about some immunizations to refusal of all vaccines. This clinical report provides information about the scope and impact of the problem, the facts surrounding common vaccination concerns, and the latest evidence regarding effective communication techniques for the vaccine conversation. After reading this clinical report, readers can expect to: Understand concepts and underlying determinants of vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy.Understand the relationship between vaccine hesitancy and costs of preventable medical care.Recognize and address specific concerns (eg, vaccine safety) with caregivers when hesitancy is present.

Frequency of Perceived Conflict between Families and Clinicians at Time of Clinical Ethics Consultation in Hospitalized Children.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the frequency of conflict between clinicians and families at the time of pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and what factors are associated with the presence of conflict. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single, tertiary urban US pediatric hospital that included all hospitalized patients between January 2008 and December 2019 who received CEC. Utilizing the hospital's CEC database that requires documentation of the presence of conflict by the consultant at the time of CEC, we determined the frequency and types of perceived conflict between families and clinicians. We also assessed the bivariable association between conflict and patient age, patient- or family-reported race/ethnicity, language for care, insurance status, clinical setting, and consultant involvement. RESULTS: Perceived conflict between clinicians and families was present in 44% (91/209) of CEC. We observed a higher occurrence of clinician-family conflict within certain consult topics than others, in particular, informed consent/parental permission (69%), cultural considerations (67%), benefit/harm assessment (58%), and limitation of life-sustaining treatment (58%). We found no other significant associations between the presence of perceived conflict and patient sociodemographic factors or CEC factors. CONCLUSIONS: Conflict between healthcare teams and families appears common in CEC, particularly with certain consult topics. Further study is needed to better understand conflict types, causes of conflicts, management and mediation strategies, and outcomes.

AI as a Mental Health Therapist for Adolescents.

This Viewpoint discusses benefits and risks of using conversational artificial intelligence platforms to deliver psychotherapy to adolescents.

Disparities in Clinical Ethics Consultation among Hospitalized Children: A Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic factors associated with pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC). STUDY DESIGN: Matched, case-control study at a single center, tertiary pediatric hospital in the Pacific Northwest. Cases (patients hospitalized January 2008-December 2019 with CEC) were compared with controls (those without CEC). We determined the association of the outcome (CEC receipt) with exposures (race/ethnicity, insurance status, and language for care) using univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 209 cases and 836 matched controls, most cases identified as white (42%), had public/no insurance (66%), and were English-speaking (81%); most controls identified as white (53%), had private insurance (54%), and were English-speaking (90%). In univariate analysis, patients identifying as Black (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.57, 4.95; P < .001), Hispanic (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.97; P = .003), with public/no insurance (OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.58, 3.10; P < .001), and using Spanish language for care (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.47, 4.32; P < .001) had significantly increased odds of CEC, compared with patients identifying as white, using private insurance, and using English for care, respectively. In multivariable regression, Black race (adjusted OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.16, 3.87; P = .014) and public/no insurance (adjusted OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.68; P = .003) remained significantly associated with receipt of CEC. CONCLUSIONS: We found disparities in receipt of CEC by race and insurance status. Further study is needed to determine the causes of these disparities.

A sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial comparing web-based education to mobile video interpreter access for improving provider interpreter use in primary care clinics: the mVOCAL hybrid type 3 study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who use a language other than English for medical care are at risk for disparities related to healthcare safety, patient-centered care, and quality. Professional interpreter use decreases these disparities but remains underutilized, despite widespread access and legal mandates. In this study, we compare two discrete implementation strategies for improving interpreter use: (1) enhanced education targeting intrapersonal barriers to use delivered in a scalable format (interactive web-based educational modules) and (2) a strategy targeting system barriers to use in which mobile video interpreting is enabled on providers' own mobile devices. METHODS: We will conduct a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in 3-5 primary care organizations, using a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design. Our primary implementation outcome is interpreter use, calculated by matching clinic visits to interpreter invoices. Our secondary effectiveness outcome is patient comprehension, determined by comparing patient-reported to provider-documented visit diagnosis. Enrolled providers (n = 55) will be randomized to mobile video interpreting or educational modules, plus standard interpreter access. After 9 months, providers with high interpreter use will continue as assigned; those with lower use will be randomized to continue as before or add the alternative strategy. After another 9 months, both strategies will be available to enrolled providers for 9 more months. Providers will complete 2 surveys (beginning and end) and 3 in-depth interviews (beginning, middle, and end) to understand barriers to interpreter use, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Patients who use a language other than English will be surveyed (n = 648) and interviewed (n = 75) following visits with enrolled providers to understand their experiences with communication. Visits will be video recorded (n = 100) to assess fidelity to assigned strategies. We will explore strategy mechanism activation to refine causal pathway models using a quantitative plus qualitative approach. We will also determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of each implementation strategy from a healthcare organization perspective, using administrative and provider survey data. DISCUSSION: Determining how these two scalable strategies, alone and in sequence, perform for improving interpreter use, the mechanisms by which they do so, and at what cost, will provide critical insights for addressing a persistent cause of healthcare disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05591586.

Development of PIVOT with MI: A motivational Interviewing-Based vaccine communication training for pediatric clinicians.

Delay or refusal of childhood vaccines is common and may be increasing. Pediatricians are parents' most trusted source for vaccine information, yet many struggle with how to communicate with parents who resist recommended vaccines. Evidence-based communication strategies for vaccine conversations are lacking. In this manuscript, we describe the development and perceived usefulness of a curriculum to train clinicians on a specific vaccine communication strategy as part of the PIVOT with MI study, a cluster randomized trial testing the effectiveness of this communication strategy on increasing childhood vaccination uptake among 24 pediatric practices in Colorado and Washington. The communication strategy is based on the existing evidence-based communication strategies of a presumptive format for initiating vaccine conversations and use of motivational interviewing if hesitancy persists. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews with pediatric clinicians helped inform the development of the training curriculum, which consisted of an introductory video module followed by 3 training sessions. Between September 2019 and January 2021, 134 pediatric clinicians (92 pediatricians, 42 advanced practice providers) participated in the training as part of the PIVOT with MI study. Of these, 92 % viewed an introductory video module, 93 % attended or viewed a baseline synchronous training, 82 % attended or viewed a 1st refresher training, and 77 % attended or viewed a 2nd refresher training. A follow-up survey was administered August 2020 through March 2021; among respondents (n = 100), >95 % of participants reported that each component of the training program was very or somewhat useful. These data suggest that the PIVOT with MI training intervention is a useful vaccine communication resource with the potential for high engagement among pediatric clinicians.

Clinician Communication to Address Vaccine Hesitancy.

There are several factors that influence childhood vaccine uptake. Pediatric clinicians play a particularly influential role in parent vaccine decision-making. It is critical therefore that pediatric clinicians have a "communication toolbox"--a set of effective, evidence-based communication strategies to facilitate uptake of childhood vaccines--that they can use in conversations with parents about vaccines. In this article, recent advances in our understanding of what constitutes effective clinician vaccine communication with parents are discussed.

Validation of a Process for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to confirm, refute, or modify a 4-step process for implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in pediatrics that involves determining 1) if the decision includes >1 medically reasonable option; 2) if one option has a favorable medical benefit-burden ratio compared to other options; and 3) parents' preferences regarding the options; then 4) calibrating the SDM approach based on other relevant decision characteristics. METHODS: We videotaped a purposive sample of pediatric inpatient and outpatient encounters at a single US children's hospital. Clinicians from 7 clinical services (craniofacial, neonatology, oncology, pulmonary, pediatric intensive care, hospital medicine, and sports medicine) were eligible. English-speaking parents of children who participated in inpatient family care conferences or outpatient problem-oriented encounters with participating clinicians were eligible. We conducted individual postencounter interviews with clinician and parent participants utilizing video-stimulated recall to facilitate reflection of decision-making that occurred during the encounter. We utilized direct content analysis with open coding of interview transcripts to determine the salience of the 4-step SDM process and identify themes that confirmed, refuted, or modified this process. RESULTS: We videotaped 30 encounters and conducted 53 interviews. We found that clinicians' and parents' experiences of decision-making confirmed each SDM step. However, there was variation in the interpretation of each step and a need for flexibility in implementing the process depending on specific decisional contexts. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-step SDM process for pediatrics appears to be salient and may benefit from further guidance about the interpretation of each step and contextual factors that support a modified approach.

Rapid Development and Testing of a COVID-19 Vaccine Curriculum for Pediatricians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic evolves and vaccines become available to children, pediatricians must navigate vaccination discussions in the setting of rapidly changing vaccine recommendations and approvals. We developed and evaluated an educational curriculum for pediatricians to improve their knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and confidence in communicating with patients and families about COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Five institutions collaborated to develop an online educational curriculum. Utilizing the collaboration's multidisciplinary expertise, we developed a 3-module curriculum focused on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and vaccine basics, logistics and administration of COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 vaccine communication principles. Surveys administered to clinician participants before and after completion of the curriculum assessed knowledge and confidence; a follow-up survey 1 month after the post-survey assessed persistence of initial findings. RESULTS: A total of 152 pediatric providers participated; 72 completed both pre- and post-surveys. The median knowledge score improved from the pre-survey to the post-survey (79%-93%, P < .001). There was an increase in providers' confidence after completing the curriculum, which persisted in the follow-up survey. In the post-survey, 98% of participants had had the opportunity to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine with patients, and most clinicians reported that the modules decreased apprehension some or significantly. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates rapid and feasible deployment of a curriculum providing up-to-date information to front-line clinicians responsible for having complex conversations about COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. Clinicians who completed this curriculum had sustained increased confidence and decreased levels of apprehension when discussing the COVID-19 vaccine.

Parent Attitudes Towards Childhood Vaccines After the Onset of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of a novel infectious disease epidemic on parent general attitudes about childhood vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a natural experiment utilizing cross-sectional survey data from parents of infants in Washington and Colorado participating in a larger trial that began on September 27, 2019. At enrollment, parents completed the short version of the Parental Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV-SF), a validated survey scored from 0 to 4, with higher scores representing more negative attitudes. The exposure variable was onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States, with the before-period defined as September 27, 2019 to February 28, 2020 and the after-period defined as April 1, 2020-December 10, 2020, with the after-period further separated into proximate (April 1, 2020-July 31, 2020) and distant periods (August 1, 2020-December 10, 2020). The outcome variable was parent negative attitudes about childhood vaccines, defined as a score of ≥2 on the PACV-SF. We estimated the probability of the outcome after (vs before) the exposure using log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equations adjusted for demographic confounding variables. RESULTS: Among 4562 parents, the risk of negative attitudes was lower immediately after (vs before) SARS-CoV-2 onset (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36, 0.94; P = .027), but by August-December 2020, the average rate of negative attitudes was 35% higher than during April-July 2020 (aRR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.61; P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced risk of negative general vaccine attitudes observed immediately after SARS-CoV-2 onset was quickly attenuated.

The case against COVID-19 vaccine mandates in pediatric solid organ transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Transplantation in conjunction with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation released a joint statement on August 13, 2021 in which they strongly recommend that solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and their eligible household members and close contacts be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with an approved COVID-19 vaccine. Some SOT programs have gone further and will refuse to list or transplant candidates unless the candidate and their household are vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Two general pediatrician-ethicists use current best evidence and moral theory to argue why it is unethical to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for pediatric SOT candidates, their primary support person, and their households. RESULTS: Pediatric vaccine mandates are most justifiable when they prevent the harm of a serious vaccine preventable disease (VPD) in children in settings where transmission is highly likely and there are no alternatives that are effective in preventing transmission that intrude less on individual freedom. An additional justification for a vaccine mandate in the SOT context is stewardship of a scarce resource if there is significant risk of graft loss from the VPD to an unvaccinated SOT candidate or recipient. Current evidence does not support fulfillment of these criteria in pediatric solid organ transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Making SOT listing contingent on COVID-19 vaccination is problematic. Though there is some risk of harm to a pediatric SOT candidate in remaining unvaccinated, the risk of harm of not being listed and transplanted is greater and overriding.

Addressing racism in the healthcare encounter: The role of clinical ethics consultants.

Justice is a core principle in bioethics, and a fair opportunity to achieve health is central to this principle. Racism and other forms of prejudice, discrimination, or bias directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are known contributors to health inequity, defined as unjust differences in health or access to care. Though hospital-based ethics committees and consultation services routinely address issues of justice that arise in the course of patient care, there is variability in whether and how racism and other causes of health inequities are addressed. In this paper, we describe a novel structure and process for addressing health equity within clinical ethics consultation. In addition, we discuss the barriers and challenges to its success, many of which are rooted in the identities, norms and assumptions that underlie traditional clinical ethics consultation. We offer pragmatic recommendations and conclude with unresolved questions that remain as we work to adapt the structure of a clinical ethics consultation service to improve attention to issues of health equity and promote anti-racism in patient care and institutional policy.

Vaccine Administration in Children's Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To examine inpatient vaccine delivery across a national sample of children's hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining vaccine administration at 49 children's hospitals in the Pediatric Health Information System database. Children <18 years old admitted between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2019, and age eligible for vaccinations were included. We determined the proportion of hospitalizations with ≥1 dose of any vaccine type administered overall and by hospital, the type of vaccines administered, and the demographic characteristics of children who received vaccines. We calculated adjusted hospital-level rates for each vaccine type by hospital. We used logistic and linear regression models to examine characteristics associated with vaccine administration. RESULTS: There were 1 185 667 children and 1 536 340 hospitalizations included. The mean age was 5.5 years; 18% were non-Hispanic Black, and 55% had public insurance. There were ≥1 vaccine doses administered in 12.9% (95% confidence interval: 12.8-12.9) of hospitalizations, ranging from 1% to 45% across hospitals. The most common vaccines administered were hepatitis B and influenza. Vaccine doses other than the hepatitis B birth dose and influenza were administered in 1.9% of hospitalizations. Children had higher odds of receiving a vaccine dose other than the hepatitis B birth dose or influenza if they were <2 months old, had public insurance, were non-Hispanic Black race, were medically complex, or had a length of stay ≥3 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this national study, few hospitalizations involved vaccine administration with substantial variability across US children's hospitals. Efforts to standardize inpatient vaccine administration may represent an opportunity to increase childhood vaccine coverage.