Search

Objective: HPV vaccination is recommended for children beginning at age 9 to prevent several types of cancer. Many parents turn to Facebook for health information. This study describes changes in HPV vaccine-related articles shared on Facebook amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: HPV-related articles shared on Facebook (2019–2021) were collected using Buzzsumo, a social media analytics tool and analyzed using content analysis. Articles were categorized by valence, misinformation, evidence types, persuasive tactics, and framing. We quantified these data and tested for difference by article year. Results: Of the 138 included articles, 51% had positive valence towards the vaccine and 36% had negative valence. In 2021, there was a significant increase in positive messaging (72% vs. 44% in 2019/2020; p

Abstract Background The current study analyzed articles shared on Facebook between 2019 and 2021 that discuss the HPV vaccine. Results address a gap in knowledge about the persuasive strategies used in HPV vaccine discourse on Facebook. Methods Using Buzzsumo.com, we collected 138 articles, shared on Facebook between 2019 and 2021, with the highest “engagement scores,” or total number of reactions, comments, and shares. Using a content analysis methodology, three independent coders were trained in using the study codebook, achieved acceptable inter-rater reliability (Krippendorf’s alpha = 0.811), and coded each article in Atlas.ti. Results Seventy-two articles had a positive valence toward the HPV vaccine, 48 had a negative valence, and 18 were mixed-valence or neutral. Pro-vaccine articles presented a variety of evidence types in support of benefits of HPV vaccination. Pro-vaccine articles primarily originated from national and local news sources. Anti-vaccine articles combined presentation of evidence with persuasive arguments and strategies, such as mistrust of institutions, fear appeals, ideological appeals, presenting a high number of arguments or detail, and minimizing the severity of HPV. Three sources were responsible for producing 62.5% of all anti-vaccine articles in the dataset. Mixed-valence or neutral articles mixed cancer prevention discourse with ideological appeals about protecting parental rights, and were mostly produced by local news outlets. Conclusion The results of this study can help health communicators anticipate the types of discourses that vaccine-hesitant parents may have encountered online. Implications and suggestions for practice are discussed.

Background/Objectives: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccinations prevent HPV infection and related cancers. Despite being at higher risk of secondary cancers linked to HPV, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are undervaccinated. This study aimed to compare pediatric oncology providers’ knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices regarding HPV vaccination among those who participated in a multilevel educational HPV vaccine program with those of a national sample of oncology providers. Methods: Between February and March 2023, 39 providers from five pediatric oncology clinics in Texas completed online surveys, assessing knowledge about CCS risk for HPV-related cancers, attitudes towards the HPV vaccine, and confidence in recommending the vaccine to CCS. The results were compared with a national survey of providers conducted in 2019 (n = 195). Results: The findings showed that providers who participated in our program had greater knowledge of CCS increased risk for HPV-related cancers (96% vs. 38%; p < 0.001); greater confidence in discussing and recommending the HPV vaccine (100% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) and addressing parental concerns (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001); and a more positive attitude about oncology providers than general pediatricians, recommending (96% vs. 71%; p = 0.006) and administering the HPV vaccine to CCS (96% vs. 53%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of educating oncology providers about the increased risk of CCS and improving their self-efficacy to recommend the HPV vaccine, promoting vaccination in the oncology setting.

Despite clear evidence of the public health benefits of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in preventing HPV-related cancers and genital warts, underutilization of HPV vaccination in the United States persists. Interventions targeting multi-level determinants of vaccination behavior are crucial for improving HPV vaccination rates. The study’s purpose was to implement and evaluate the adapted Adolescent Vaccination Program (AVP), a clinic-based, multi-level, multi-component intervention aimed at increasing HPV vaccine initiation and completion rates in a five-clinic pediatric network in Bexar County, Texas. The adaptation process was guided by established frameworks and involved formative work with clinic stakeholders. The study utilized a quasi-experimental single group pre- and post- study design, with an external comparison data using the National Immunization Survey-Teen (NIS-Teen) datasets for the same time period to examine the AVP’s effect on HPV vaccination initiation and completion. A series of interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) compared the clinic system patient outcomes (HPV vaccination initiation and completion rates) in the post-intervention to the general adolescent population (NIS-Teen). Of the 6438 patients (11–17 years) with clinic visits during the 3-year study period, HPV vaccination initiation rates increased from 64.7% to 80.2% (p < 0.05) and completion rates increased from 43.2% to 60.2% (p < 0.05). The AVP was effective across various demographic and economic subgroups, demonstrating its generalizability. ITSA findings indicated the AVP improved HPV vaccination initiation and completion rates in clinic settings and that AVP strategies facilitated resilience during the pandemic. The minimal adaptation required for implementation in a new clinic system underscores its feasibility and potential for widespread adoption.

Parents’ stigmatizing beliefs about the HPV vaccine, such as beliefs that it promotes adolescent sexual activity, constitute a notable barrier to vaccine uptake. The purpose of this study is to describe the associations between parents’ stigmatizing beliefs about the HPV vaccine, psychosocial antecedents to vaccination, and parents’ intentions to vaccinate their children. Parents of vaccine-eligible children (n = 512) were surveyed in a large urban clinical network. Results indicate that two stigmatizing beliefs were significantly associated with self-efficacy in talking with a doctor about the HPV vaccine. Believing that the vaccine would make a child more likely to have sex was associated with citing social media as a source of information about the vaccine. Other stigmatizing beliefs were either associated with citing healthcare professionals as sources of information about the vaccine, or they were not significantly associated with any information source. This finding suggests that stigmatizing beliefs might discourage parents from seeking out information about the vaccine. This study is significant because it further highlights the importance of doctor recommendations to all patients at recommended ages; doctor visits may represent one of the few opportunities to normalize HPV vaccination and address parents’ stigmatizing beliefs about the HPV vaccine.

Abstract Objective: The purpose of this scoping review is two-fold: to assess the literature that quantitatively measures outcomes of mentorship programs designed to support research-focused junior faculty and to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity within academic medicine mentoring programs. Methods: Studies were identified by searching Medline using MESH terms for mentoring and academic medicine. Eligibility criteria included studies focused on junior faculty in research-focused positions, receiving mentorship, in an academic medical center in the USA, with outcomes collected to measure career success (career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity, leadership positions). Data were abstracted using a standardized data collection form, and best practices were summarized. Results: Search terms resulted in 1,842 articles for title and abstract review, with 27 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Two studies focused specifically on women, and four studies focused on junior faculty from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. From the initial search, few studies were designed to specifically increase diversity or capture outcomes relevant to promotion within academic medicine. Of those which did, most studies captured the impact on research productivity and career satisfaction. Traditional one-on-one mentorship, structured peer mentorship facilitated by a senior mentor, and peer mentorship in combination with one-on-one mentorship were found to be effective strategies to facilitate research productivity. Conclusion: Efforts are needed at the mentee, mentor, and institutional level to provide mentorship to diverse junior faculty on research competencies and career trajectory, create a sense of belonging, and connect junior faculty with institutional resources to support career success.

Abstract Background: Enhancing diversity in the scientific workforce is a long-standing issue. This study uses mixed methods to understand the feasibility, impact, and priority of six key strategies to promote diverse and inclusive training and contextualize the six key strategies across Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) Program Institutions. Methods: Four breakout sessions were held at the NCATS 2020 CTSA Program annual meeting focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. This paper focuses on the breakout session for Enhancing DEI in Translational Science Training Programs. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods convergent approach. The quantitative strand includes the online polling results. The qualitative strand includes the breakout session and the chat box in response to the training presentation. Results: Across feasibility, impact, and priority questions, prioritizing representation ranked number 1. Building partnerships ranked number 2 in feasibility and priority, while making it personal ranked number 2 for impact. Across each strategy, rankings supported the qualitative data findings in feasibility through shared experiences, impact in the ability to increase DEI, and priority rankings in comparison to the other strategies. No divergence was found across quantitative and qualitative data findings. Conclusion: Findings provide robust support for prioritizing representation as a number one strategy to focus on in training programs. Specifically, this strategy can be operationalized through integration of community representation, diversity advocates, and adopting a holistic approach to recruiting a diverse cadre of scholars into translational science training programs at the national level across CTSAs.

Abstract Background: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in clinical and translational science (CTS) are paramount to driving innovation and increasing health equity. One important area for improving diversity is among trainees in CTS programs. This paper reports on findings from a special session at the November 2020 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) national program meeting that focused on advancing diversity and inclusion within CTS training programs. Methods: Using qualitative content analysis, we identified approaches brought forth to increase DEI in KL2 career development and other training programs aimed at early-stage CTS investigators, beyond the six strategies put forth to guide the breakout session (prioritizing representation, building partnerships, making it personal, designing program structure, improving through feedback, and winning endorsement). We used an inductive qualitative content analysis approach to identify themes from a transcript of the panel of KL2 program leaders centered on DEI in training programs. Results: We identified four themes for advancing DEI within CTS training programs: 1) institutional buy-in; 2) proactive recruitment efforts; 3) an equitable application process; and 4) high-quality, diverse mentorship. Conclusion: Implementing these strategies in CTS and other training programs will be an important step for advancing DEI. However, processes need to be established to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of these strategies through continuous quality improvement, a key component of the CTSA program. Training programs within the CTSA are well-positioned to be leaders in this critical effort to increase the diversity of the scientific workforce.

Purpose: Hispanics residing in rural areas are among those who are least likely to be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) and more likely to present with late stage CRC than other racial or ethnic groups. We conducted a pilot study utilizing a mixed-method approach to explore perceptions of CRC and CRC screening among Hispanic adults residing in South Texas rural communities and to identify health literacy needs associated with CRC screening uptake. Methods: A convenience sample of 58 participants, aged 35–65, were recruited to complete questionnaires and participate in focus groups, ranging in size from 4 to 13 participants. Six focus groups were conducted across 3 adjacent rural counties. A semi-structured moderator’s guide was designed to elicit discussion about participants’ experiences, knowledge, and perceptions of CRC and CRC screening. Findings: Lack of knowledge of CRC and CRC screening as cancer prevention was a common theme across focus groups. A majority, 59%, reported never been screened. Thirty-nine percent reported they had been screened for colon cancer and 5% reported they did not know if they had been screened. Participants with lower educational levels perceived themselves at high risk for developing CRC polyps, would not want to know if they had CRC, and if they did have CRC, would not want to know until the very end. Limited information about CRC and CRC screening, a lack of specialized providers, limited transportation assistance, and compromised personal privacy in small-town medical facilities were perceived to be barriers to CRC screening. Conclusions: Low screening rates persist among rural Hispanics. Improving CRC screening literacy and addressing factors unique to rural Hispanics may be a beneficial strategy for reducing screening disparities in this at-risk population.

Abstract Background Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test. Methods Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4–5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used. Results Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test. Conclusion Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence. Trial registration Primary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047 .

Background: Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test., Methods: Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4-5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used., Results: Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test., Conclusion: Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence., Trial Registration: Primary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047 .