Addressing racial inequality and its effects on vaccination rate: A trial comparing a pharmacist and peer educational program (MOTIVATE) in diverse older adults.

BACKGROUND: The mortality, morbidity, health care utilization, and cost attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases are substantial for those aged 50 years and older. Although vaccination is the most cost-effective strategy to prevent common infectious diseases in older adults, vaccination rates remain below US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention benchmarks, especially among racial minorities. Historical mistrust, structural racism within the US medical system, and misinformation contributed to lower immunization rates among minorities, especially Black Americans. To address the critical need to increase knowledge and trust in vaccination, 2 community-based educational interventions were tested: a pharmacist-led didactic session (PHARM) and a peer-led educational workshop (PEER). OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effectiveness and costs of PEER and PHARM community-based education models in improving knowledge and trust in vaccinations. METHODS: The Motivating Older adults to Trust Information about Vaccines And Their Effects (MOTIVATE) study was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in the greater Delaware Valley Region sites from 2017 to 2020. The included sites (7 senior centers, 3 housing units, 1 church, and 1 neighborhood family center) predominantly served Black communities. Participants were randomized to either PHARM or PEER sessions covering influenza, pneumococcal disease, herpes zoster, and beliefs related to vaccines. Peer leaders facilitated smaller workshops (5-10 participants), whereas pharmacists conducted larger didactic lectures with 15-43 participants. Outcomes were captured through a self-administered survey at baseline, postprogram, and 1 month after the program. Intervention costs were measured in 2017 US dollars. RESULTS: 287 participants were included. Their mean age was 74.5 years (SD = 8.94), 80.5% were women, 64.2% were Black, and 48.1% completed some college. Knowledge scores within groups for all 3 diseases significantly increased postprogram for both PEER and PHARM and were sustained at 1 month. Between-group knowledge differences were significant only for influenza (PEER participants had significantly larger improvement vs PHARM). Vaccination trust significantly increased in both groups. Total program costs were $11,411 for PEER and $5,104 for PHARM. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions significantly improved knowledge and trust toward vaccination and retained their effect 1 month after the program. The 2 effective community-based education models should be expanded to ensure timely and trusted information is available to educate older adults about vaccine-preventable diseases. Further research is encouraged to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of these models' utilization on a larger scale. DISCLOSURES: Dr Schafer is an employee of Merck; however, at the time of the project, he was a professor at Thomas Jefferson University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The sponsor played no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the article. Study Registration Number: NCT03239665.

Analysis of Stakeholder Engagement in the Public Comments of ICER Draft Evidence Reports.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment is becoming increasingly important to healthcare payers' decision-making. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is the most established US-based research group performing value assessments. ICER provides opportunities for stakeholder engagement, including a window of opportunity for public comments on the draft evidence report. Those public comments were reviewed in this study. OBJECTIVES: To determine which stakeholders are most often commenting on ICER technology appraisal reports and to examine what aspects of the reports are the topics of these comments. METHOD: We reviewed 7 ICER reports, which were used to extract stakeholder comments. All the identified comments were evaluated by 2 trained reviewers independently for stakeholder type, comment nature (positive or negative), and focus of comments (eg, methodology, data, real-world experience). Statistical analyses were used to analyze the reports for any associations between the frequency of the comments and the stakeholder type by therapeutic area. RESULTS: A total of 463 comments were identified within the 55 letter submissions identified across the 7 ICER reviews that were included in the study. The quantity of the comments generally reflected the quantity of therapies that were included in the review. Drug manufacturers (63.1%), patients or patient advocacy groups (18.1%), and providers or provider groups (9.7%) were the stakeholders most often engaged in the public comments. The comments most often addressed the methodology of the value assessment (53.8%). Comments about missing data (14%), general criticism (8.2%), and general support (2.2%) were less common. CONCLUSION: ICER is committed to engaging stakeholders in their value assessment process and adapting their strategies to improve such communications. Although ICER aims to influence payer decision-making, drug manufacturers were the most involved stakeholder in the assessment process, and they were most concerned with ICER's methodology. These results show the impact that ICER may have on decision-making in healthcare, emphasize the incentives that ICER drives for certain stakeholders, and highlight areas for further investigation.