Search

Verbally rich interactions beginning in early infancy are critical to future vocabulary development. We explored the effectiveness of introducing finger puppets in the primary care setting to support caregiver-infant interactions. The intervention cohort was given a puppet at 2 months, with high dosage defined as using the puppet daily in the first 2 weeks. At 6 months, a usual care cohort was enrolled, and outcome measures were collected for all participants. For the intervention, 92% (n = 70) of those eligible participated, and 80% (n = 56) completed the 6-month visit. For usual care, 78% (n = 60) of those eligible participated. In per-protocol analysis, overall cognitive stimulation (StimQ-I) ( P = .04) and Parental Involvement in Developmental Advance subscale ( P = .03) scores were higher for the high-dosage group (28.68, 5.16) than those for the low-dosage (24.81, 4.48) and usual care (24.15, 3.98) groups. Finger puppets may provide a low-cost and scalable way to support early language and child development.

Vaccination is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, yet persistent public-health problems include inadequate, delayed, and unstable vaccination uptake. Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few interventions examined whether normative messages increase vaccination uptake. Many experimental studies have relied on hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that altruism and free riding (i.e., taking advantage of the protection provided by others) can affect intended behavior, but few randomized trials have tested strategies to change social processes to increase vaccination uptake. The third proposition is that interventions can facilitate vaccination directly by leveraging, but not trying to change, what people think and feel. These interventions are by far the most plentiful and effective in the literature. To increase vaccine uptake, these interventions build on existing favorable intentions by facilitating action (through reminders, prompts, and primes) and reducing barriers (through logistics and healthy defaults); these interventions also shape behavior (through incentives, sanctions, and requirements). Although identification of principles for changing thoughts and feelings to motivate vaccination is a work in progress, psychological principles can now inform the design of systems and policies to directly facilitate action.

Objectives. We described the following among U.S. primary care physicians: ( 1) perceived importance of vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices relative to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) preventive services, ( 2) attitudes toward the U.S. adult immunization schedule, and ( 3) awareness and use of Medicare preventive service visits. Methods. We conducted an Internet and mail survey from March to June 2012 among national networks of general internists and family physicians. Results. We received responses from 352 of 445 (79%) general internists and 255 of 409 (62%) family physicians. For a 67-year-old hypothetical patient, 540/606 (89%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 92) of physicians ranked seasonal influenza vaccine and 487/607 (80%, 95% CI 77, 83) ranked pneumococcal vaccine as very important, whereas 381/604 (63%, 95% CI 59, 67) ranked Tdap/Td vaccine and 288/607 (47%, 95% CI 43, 51) ranked herpes zoster vaccine as very important ( pConclusions. Despite lack of prioritization of vaccines by ACIP, physicians are prioritizing some vaccines over others and ranking some vaccines below other preventive services. These attitudes and confusion about the immunization schedule may result in missed opportunities for vaccination. Medicare preventive visits are not being used widely despite offering a venue for delivery of preventive services, including vaccinations.

Eleventh- and 6th-grade students from an urban public school district were surveyed concerning vaccination outside the traditional medical home. Survey response rates were 50% for 11th- and 73% for 6th-grade students. Seventy-two percent of 11th-grade students reported that public health clinics were definitely or probably acceptable locations for vaccination; 70% reported this for emergency departments, 65% for school-based health centers, 55% for family planning clinics, and 44% for obstetrics/gynecology clinics. Corresponding percentages for 6th-grade students were 60% for public health clinics, 49% for emergency departments, 39% for school-based health centers, and 36% for family planning clinics. Sixth-grade students were not asked about obstetrics/gynecology clinics. Forty-seven percent of respondents identified a doctor’s office as the “best” setting to receive vaccines, more than identified any other setting. We concluded that vaccination in one or more settings outside the traditional medical home was acceptable to most adolescents.

This study compared the use of mail and Internet surveys of sentinel networks of physicians with traditional random sample mail surveys for three national vaccine policy surveys. Three nationally representative sentinel networks of physicians were established (pediatricians, n = 427; general internists, n = 438; and family physicians, n = 433). Surveys of the sentinel networks were compared with simultaneous surveys conducted with random samples of the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. Response rates were 74% to 78% for sentinel surveys and 29% to 43% for traditional random sample surveys. Respondents to the two methods were generally comparable in demographic characteristics. While there were some differences in responses to survey topic questions, none of the differences were likely to affect policy decisions. Sentinel networks represent the opinions and experiences of physicians in a manner equivalent to traditional mail surveys and may provide a more efficient approach to conducting physician surveys.