Search

Providers’ recommendation is among the strongest predictors to patients engaging in preventive care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare providers’ Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) screening recommendation quality between high-risk and average-risk patients to determine if providers are universally recommending HCV screening, regardless of risk behaviors. This cross-sectional survey of 284 Indiana providers in 2020 assessed provider characteristics, HCV screening recommendation practices (strength, presentation, frequency, timeliness), self-efficacy, and barriers to recommending HCV screening. T-test and Chi-square compared recommendation practices for high-risk and average-risk patients. Prevalence ratios were calculated for variables associated with HCV recommendation strength comparing high-risk and average-risk patients. Logistic regression analyses examined factors associated with HCV recommendation strength for high- and average-risk patients, with odds ratios. Compared to average-risk patients, high-risk patients received higher proportion of HCV recommendations that were strong (70.4 % v. 42.4 %), routine (61.9 % v. 55.6 %), frequent (37.7 % v. 28 %), and timely (74.2 % v. 54.9 %) (P-values

Among the identified barriers to HPV vaccination is the concern that women may compensate for their reduced susceptibility to cervical cancers by reducing cervical cancer screening. This exploratory study examined the relationship between cervical cancer screening rates and HPV vaccination. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a convenience sample of women aged 21–35 attending a local minority health fair in July 2015. Data were analyzed in 2015–2016. Outcomes assessed were: receiving a Pap test within the last three years, awareness and comfort with current Pap test recommendations, and knowledge regarding the purpose of a Pap test. A total of 291 women were included in the analyses. Mean age was 28.5 years and 62% were non-Hispanic black. 84% had received a Pap test in the last three years and 33% had received at least one HPV vaccine. Logistic regression results showed that women who had been vaccinated did not have lower odds of having a Pap test in the past three years (OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.66–2.65). In an adjusted regression model controlling for age and race, vaccinated women were significantly more likely to have had a Pap test (AOR = 3.06; 95% CI = 1.37–6.83). Yet only 26% of women knew the purpose of a Pap test and the proportion who answered correctly was higher among non-Hispanic white women. Women who have been vaccinated for HPV are more likely to have been screened for cervical cancer. These results suggest areas for more robust studies examining pro-health attitudes, behaviors, and communication regarding vaccination and preventive screening.

Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, in which a high-risk HPV test is administered without cytology, was first included in 2018 US cervical cancer screening guidelines. Subsequent guidelines endorsed primary HPV testing as the preferred method for cervical cancer screening following evidence of its clinical and economic benefits, although many sources still indicate it as an option along with cytology and HPV/Pap co-testing. Primary HPV testing could be key to improving the declining cervical cancer screening rates in the US; however its adoption has been slow as clinicians are hesitant to make the change. Indiana ranks in the top ten states for cervical cancer mortality, with marked race-ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and low HPV vaccination rates. To examine clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary HPV testing, in 2021 we conducted an online cross-sectional survey (n = 224) and in-depth interviews (n = 20) with Indiana clinicians practicing cervical cancer screening. Only 3 % reported using primary HPV testing for eligible patients, and only 50 % were willing to adopt it as the preferred cervical cancer screening method for the recommended patient group. In a multivariable logistic regression model, knowledge of the effectiveness (aOR 2.58 [1.41–4.72]) and perceived benefit (aOR 7.35 [3.65–14.81]) of primary HPV testing predicted willingness to adopt. In-depth interviews revealed knowledge gaps, uncertainty, and perceived limitations of this method as the reasons for limited uptake of primary HPV testing. Targeted messages about the benefits and effectiveness may enhance clinician knowledge, acceptance, and adoption.

To assess how the COVID-19 pandemic affected catch-up HPV vaccination among age-eligible adults (ages 18–45). The current study leverages a national, cross-sectional sample of US adults ages 18–45 years to assess the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions to catch-up HPV vaccination in 2021. The sample was restricted to adults intending to receive the HPV vaccine. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the probability of 1) pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption and 2) uncertainty about pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption. Report of ‘no pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption’ served as the reference category. Among adults intending to get the HPV vaccine (n = 1,683), 8.6 % reported pandemic-related HPV vaccination disruption, 14.7 % reported uncertainty about vaccination disruption, and 76.7 % reported no disruption. Factors associated with higher odds of pandemic-related vaccination disruption included non-English language preference (OR: 3.20; 95 % CI: 1.99–5.13), being a parent/guardian (OR: 1.77; 95 % CI: 1.18–2.66), having at least one healthcare visit in the past year (OR: 1.97; 95 % CI: 1.10–3.53), being up-to-date on the tetanus vaccine (OR: 1.81; 95 % CI: 1.19–2.75), and being a cancer survivor (OR: 2.57; 95 % CI: 1.52–4.34). Catch-up HPV vaccination for age-eligible adults is a critical public health strategy for reducing HPV-related cancers. While a small percentage of adults reported pandemic-related disruptions to HPV vaccination, certain adults (e.g., individuals with a non-English language preference and cancer survivors) were more likely to report a disruption. Interventions may be needed that increase accessibility of catch-up HPV vaccination among populations with reduced healthcare access during the pandemic.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates in the U.S. are relatively low. Provider recommendation rates for HPV vaccination often vary by patient age and relationship status. Obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) represent a key provider group that can recommend the HPV vaccine. This study examined differences in OB/GYN recommendation of HPV vaccination for inpatient postpartum patients by age, parity, and marital status. Data were collected from OB/GYNs nationally via a cross-sectional survey. Participants were randomized to two vignette groups (23-year-old patient or 33-year-old patient). Within each group, participants received 4 vignettes that were identical except for patient marital status (married/not in a committed relationship) and number of children (first/third child), and were asked to indicate HPV vaccination recommendation likelihood on a scale of 0 (definitely would not) to 100 (definitely would). A 2 × 2 × 2 general linear model with repeated measures was used to examine main and interaction effects of patient age, relationship status, and parity. 207 OB/GYNs were included in the final analyses. Recommendation was high for 23-year-old patients (range: 64.5–84.6 out of 100). When marital status and parity were held constant, recommendation likelihood was higher for the younger vs. older patient and was also higher for patients not in a committed relationship, compared to married patients (all p-values

Although there has been extensive exploration of public opinion surrounding many non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) aimed at mitigating transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. mask-wearing and social distancing), there has been less discussion of the public’s perception of the ethical appropriateness other NPIs. This paper presents the results of a survey of U.S. adults’ opinions of the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Our research revealed overall high agreement with the ethical permissibility of both state-to-state and international travel restrictions, though we saw significant difference across political party affiliation and conservative/liberal ideologies. Other factors associated with agreement with state-to-state travel restrictions included increasing education, increasing income, and both high and low commitment altruism. When considering international travel restrictions, income, education, and low commitment altruism were associated with increased agreement with the ethical permissibility of international travel restrictions. Ethical analysis and implications are explored.

Background: Obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) are well poised to vaccinate girls and young women against HPV, however little is known about if and how they recommend the HPV vaccine. This study aims to understand factors associated with strong and frequent HPV vaccine recommendations among OB/GYNs for patients 26 years and younger. Methods: 224 practicing U.S. OB/GYNs were surveyed for how strongly and frequently they recommend the HPV vaccine to patients 26 and younger. Provider beliefs, knowledge, and preferences surrounding the vaccine, as well as clinic and patient-level variables were examined as covariates. We then examined the relationships using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Of the 224 respondents, 205 were included in the analysis, with 57% (n = 116) reporting strongly and frequently recommending the HPV vaccination to eligible patients 26 and younger. The regression showed two provider beliefs and two clinic-level attributes to be strongly associated with strong and frequent recommendations. Being a strong and frequent recommender was positively associated with believing other gynecologists frequently recommend the vaccine (aOR 24.33 95%CI[2.56–231.14]) and believing that 50% or more of their patients are interested in receiving the vaccine (aOR 2.77 95%CI[1.25–6.13]). The clinic-level attributes were having the vaccine stocked (aOR 2.66 95%CI[1.02–6.93]) and suburban (aOR 3.31 95%CI[1.07–10.19]) or urban (aOR 3.54 95%CI[1.07–11.76]) location versus rural. Conclusions: These findings suggest that OB/GYN peer support and educating OB/GYN about patients’ interest in HPV vaccination may improve HPV vaccination. This work can inform clinic-level interventions including stocking the vaccine and focusing improvement efforts on rural clinics.

Background: Provider recommendation is a significant predictor of HPV vaccine uptake. Prior research suggests that concerns regarding risk compensation could cause some providers to hesitate recommending the HPV vaccine. Methods: During 15–30 min semi-structured interviews in early 2015, 22 U.S. pediatric providers were asked about their beliefs regarding sexual risk compensation and cervical cancer screening following HPV vaccination. Providers were asked if these beliefs result in reservations recommending the vaccine. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: None of the providers believed the HPV vaccine would result in risky sexual behavior. Half indicated it was better to start vaccination early, before sexual activity was a worry. Others noted that patients’ risky behavior decisions happen independently of vaccination. When providers were asked if they were concerned about decreased cervical cancer screening, half said they did not know and some stated they had never thought about it before. The main themes addressed were the significant time lapse between vaccination and screening and that women tend to get over-screened as opposed to under-screened. Conclusion: Providers were generally in favor of HPV vaccination and do not perceive risk compensation as a barrier to HPV recommendation. Keywords: Behavior, Risk compensation, Human Papillomavirus vaccination, Cervical cancer screening, Healthcare provider