Search

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable. Key Points Neonatal care providers perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. Perceptions of teleneonatology do not differ based on professional role or years of experience. Perceptions of teleneonatology are especially high in smaller hospitals with well newborn nurseries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the effect of differing age-at-immunization policies on measles antibody levels in US children immunized at the age of 15 months compared with Canadian children immunized at the age of 12 months., Subjects and Methods: Healthy, volunteer US and Canadian children aged 6 to 11 years who had been immunized with a single dose of the measles vaccine were enrolled from 1991 to 1993. Measles antibody was measured with a whole-virus, measles-specific IgG enzyme-linked immunoassay. Age, race, sex, country of residence, general health status, age at time of measles immunization, and time from immunization to sampling were recorded., Results: Of the 1052 children enrolled in the study, US children (n=719) had a significantly higher measles seroprevalence (87%) compared with Canadian children (n=333) (76%; P<.001). After adjustment for time from immunization and age at immunization, the differences in seropositive rates were no longer significant (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.69; P=.15). We found a significant dose-response relationship between age at the time of immunization and the odds of being seropositive after immunization, with ORs varying from 1 with immunization at 13 months or younger to 2.30 with immunization at 16 months of age (P=.01)., Conclusions: The current US policy of immunizing with the first dose of measles at the age of 12 months may be less effective than a policy of immunizing at 12 to 15 months of age. These findings may be highly significant as we move toward an era in which measles exposure may be rare and policies are developed to eradicate measles.