Search

OBJECTIVES: Determine among a representative sample of pediatricians (Peds), family medicine (FM), and general internal medicine (GIM) physicians in the 2009-2010 influenza season physicians': 1) practices and experiences with delivery of seasonal and pH1N1 influenza vaccines; and 2) anticipated and experienced barriers. METHODS: Two US national surveys administered 7/2009-10/2009 (before pH1N1 distribution) and 3/2010-6/2010 (after pH1N1 distribution) to 416 Peds, 424 FM and 432 GIM. RESULTS: Of respondents who received both surveys, 62% (776/1253) completed both. Overall, 98% reported administering seasonal influenza vaccine and 86% pH1N1, with 70% reporting that working with public health in delivery of pH1N1 was a positive experience. Due to limited supplies of pH1N1, 63% of providers reported prioritizing who received vaccine even within high risk groups. Pre-distribution, 71% perceived that patient/parental safety concerns about pH1N1 would be a barrier, and post-distribution 72% perceived it had been a barrier. Physician concern about safety decreased, with 44% reporting safety a barrier pre-distribution and 12% post-distribution (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of a pandemic most primary care physicians collaborated with public health in delivery of pH1N1. Physicians faced challenges with patient/parent safety concerns about pH1N1 and supply issues with pH1N1 that required physicians to prioritize who received vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although previous studies found no-increased mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination, residual confounding bias might have impacted the findings. Using a modified self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, we assessed the risk of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes after primary series COVID-19 vaccination., Methods: We analyzed all deaths between December 14, 2020, and August 11, 2021, among individuals from eight Vaccine Safety Datalink sites. Demographic characteristics of deaths in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines and unvaccinated individuals were reported. We conducted SCCS analyses by vaccine type and death outcomes and reported relative incidences (RI). The observation period for death spanned from the dates of emergency use authorization to the end of the study period (August 11, 2021) without censoring the observation period upon death. We pre-specified a primary risk interval of 28-day and a secondary risk interval of 14-day after each vaccination dose. Adjusting for seasonality in mortality analyses is crucial because death rates vary over time. Deaths among unvaccinated individuals were included in SCCS analyses to account for seasonality by incorporating calendar month in the models., Results: For Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), RIs of non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes were below 1 and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) excluded 1 across both doses and both risk intervals. For Moderna (mRNA-1273), RI point estimates of all outcomes were below 1, although the 95 % CIs of two RI estimates included 1: cardiac-related (RI = 0.78, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.04) and non-COVID-19 cardiac-related mortality (RI = 0.80, 95 % CI, 0.60-1.08) 14 days after the second dose in individuals without pre-existing cancer and heart disease. For Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S), RIs of four cardiac-related death outcomes ranged from 0.94 to 0.98 for the 14-day risk interval, and 0.68 to 0.72 for the 28-day risk interval and 95 % CIs included 1., Conclusion: Using a modified SCCS design and adjusting for temporal trends, no-increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality, all-cause mortality, and four cardiac-related death outcomes among recipients of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary care clinicians do not adhere to national and international guidelines recommending pulmonary function testing (PFTs) in patients with suspected asthma. Little is known about why that occurs. Our objective was to assess clinician focused barriers to ordering PFTs., Methods: An internet-based 11-item survey of primary care clinicians at a large safety-net institution was conducted between August 2021 and November 2021. This survey assessed barriers and possible electronic health record (EHR) solutions to ordering PFTs. One of the survey questions contained an open-ended question about barriers which was analyzed qualitatively., Results: The survey response rate was 59% (117/200). The top 3 reported barriers included beliefs that testing will not change management, distance to testing site, and the physical effort it takes to complete testing. Clinicians were in favor of an EHR intervention to prompt them to order PFTs. Responses to the open-ended question also conveyed that objective testing does not change management., Discussion: PFTs improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce inappropriate therapies. Of the barriers we identified, the most modifiable is to educate clinicians about how PFTs can change management. That in conjunction with an EHR prompt, which clinicians approved of, may lead to guideline congruent and improved quality in asthma care., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2024 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized use of mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccines on August 31, 2022. Currently, CDC's clinical guidance states that COVID-19 and other vaccines may be administered simultaneously. At time of authorization and recommendations, limited data existed describing simultaneous administration of COVID-19 bivalent booster and other vaccines. We describe simultaneous influenza and mRNA COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine administration between August 31-December 31, 2022, among persons aged ≥6 months in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine type, influenza vaccine type, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity. Of 2,301,876 persons who received a COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine, 737,992 (32.1%) received simultaneous influenza vaccine, majority were female (53.1%), aged ≥18 years (91.4%), and non-Hispanic White (55.7%). These findings can inform future VSD studies on simultaneous influenza and COVID-19 bivalent booster vaccine safety and coverage, which may have implications for immunization service delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kayla E. Hanson reports financial support was provided by Seqirus Srl. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Pfizer. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by Merck & Co Inc. Nicola P. Klein reports financial support was provided by GlaxoSmithKline Inc. Allison L. Naleway reports financial support was provided by Pfizer. Allison L. Naleway reports financial support was provided by Vir Biotechnology Inc. Lisa A. Jackson reports financial support was provided by Pfizer., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Clinician-patient miscommunication contributes to worse asthma outcomes. What patients call their asthma inhalers and its relationship with asthma morbidity are unknown., Methods: Inhaler names were ascertained from Black and Latinx adults with moderate-severe asthma and categorized as "standard" if based on brand/generic name or inhaler type (i.e., controller vs. rescue) or "non-standard" for other terms (i.e., color, device type, e.g., "puffer," or unique names). Clinical characteristics and asthma morbidity measures were evaluated at baseline: self-reported asthma exacerbations one year before enrollment (i.e., systemic corticosteroid bursts, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) visits, or hospitalizations), and asthma control and quality of life. Multivariable regression models tested the relationship between non-standard names and asthma morbidity measures, with adjustments., Results: Forty-four percent (502/1150) of participants used non-standard inhaler names. These participants were more likely to be Black (p=0.006), from the Southeast (p<0.001), and have fewer years with asthma (p=0.012) relative to those who used standard names. Non-standard inhaler names was associated with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.50, p=0.001; 1.8 vs. 1.5 events) for corticosteroid bursts for asthma, an IRR=1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.69, p<0.001; 1.9 vs. 1.4 events) for ED/UC visits for asthma, and an odds ratio=1.57 (95% CI, 1.12-2.18, p=0.008; 0.5 vs. 0.3 events) for asthma hospitalizations after adjustment., Conclusions: Patients who use non-standard names for asthma inhalers experience increased asthma morbidity. Ascertaining what patients call their inhalers may be a quick method to identify those at higher risk of poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Ms. Forth reports receiving honoraria from Takeda for work in advisory boards for Alpha 1 antitrypsin and severe COPD. Dr. Cardet reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and GSK for work in advisory boards and educational lectures on asthma. Dr. Fuhlbrigge is an unpaid consultant to AstraZeneca for the development of outcome measures for asthma and COPD clinical trials and a consultant to Novartis on epidemiologic analyses related to asthma control. Dr. Pace has received research grants from and is a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and a research grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Phipatanakul received grants from Genentech, Regeneron, Novartis, Sanofi, Merck, and GSK; consulting fees from Regeneron, Sanofi, GSK, Genentech, and Novartis; and honoraria for educational events from Genentech, Sanofi, Regeneron, and GSK. Dr. Mosnaim received research grant support from AstraZeneca, Alk-Abello and Genentech and receives research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and TEVA. Dr. Israel received in-kind medications or devices for NIH or PCORI-sponsored studies from Teva, Circassia, royalties from UpToDate, and consulting fees from AB Science, Allergy and Asthma Network, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avillion, Biometry, Equillium, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, NHLBI, Novartis, Pneuma Respiratory, PPS Health, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, TEVA, and Cowen. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: Safety data on simultaneous vaccination (SV) with primary series monovalent COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines are limited. We describe SV with primary series COVID-19 vaccines and assess 23 pre-specified health outcomes following SV among persons aged ≥5 years in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)., Methods: We utilized VSD's COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data from December 11, 2020-May 21, 2022. Analyses assessed frequency of SV. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated by Poisson regression when the number of outcomes was ≥5 across both doses, comparing outcome rates between COVID-19 vaccinees receiving SV and COVID-19 vaccinees receiving no SV in the 1-21 days following COVID-19 vaccine dose 1 and 1-42 days following dose 2 by SV type received ("All SV", "Influenza SV", "Non-influenza SV")., Results: SV with COVID-19 vaccines was not common practice (dose 1: 0.7 % of 8,455,037 persons, dose 2: 0.3 % of 7,787,013 persons). The most frequent simultaneous vaccines were influenza, HPV, Tdap, and meningococcal. Outcomes following SV with COVID-19 vaccines were rare (total of 56 outcomes observed after dose 1 and dose 2). Overall rate of outcomes among COVID-19 vaccinees who received SV was not statistically significantly different than the rate among those who did not receive SV (6.5 vs. 6.8 per 10,000 persons). Statistically significant elevated RRs were observed for appendicitis (2.09; 95 % CI, 1.06-4.13) and convulsions/seizures (2.78; 95 % CI, 1.10-7.06) in the "All SV" group following dose 1, and for Bell's palsy (2.82; 95 % CI, 1.14-6.97) in the "Influenza SV" group following dose 2., Conclusion: Combined pre-specified health outcomes observed among persons who received SV with COVID-19 vaccine were rare and not statistically significantly different compared to persons who did not receive SV with COVID-19 vaccine. Statistically significant adjusted rate ratios were observed for some individual outcomes, but the number of outcomes was small and there was no adjustment for multiple testing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kayla E. Hanson reports a relationship with Seqirus that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with GlaxoSmithKline that includes: funding grants. Nicola P. Klein reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur that includes: funding grants. W. Katherine Yih reports a relationship with Pfizer that includes: funding grants., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Herpes zoster vaccination rates remain low despite longstanding national recommendations to vaccinate immunocompetent adults aged ≥ 50 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) updated its recommendations for recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in October 2021 to include immunocompromised adults aged ≥19 years., Objective: To assess practices, attitudes, and knowledge about RZV, barriers to recommending RZV, and likelihood of recommending RZV to patients with various immunocompromising conditions., Design: Mail and internet-based survey conducted from May through July 2020., Participants: General internists and family physicians throughout the USA., Main Measures: Survey responses., Key Results: The response rate was 66% (632/955). Many physicians were already recommending RZV to immunocompromised populations, including adults ≥50 years with HIV (67% of respondents) and on recombinant human immune modulator therapy (56%). Forty-seven percent of respondents both stocked/administered RZV and referred patients elsewhere, frequently a pharmacy, for vaccination; 42% did not stock RZV and only referred patients. The majority agreed pharmacies do not inform them when RZV has been given (64%). Physicians were generally knowledgeable about RZV; however, 25% incorrectly thought experiencing side effects from the first dose of RZV that interfere with normal activities was a reason to not receive the second dose. The top reported barrier to recommending RZV was experience with patients declining RZV due to cost concerns (67%). Most physicians reported they would be likely to recommend RZV to immunocompromised patients., Conclusion: Most primary care physicians welcome updated ACIP RZV recommendations for immunocompromised adults. Knowledge gaps, communication issues, and financial barriers need to be addressed to optimize vaccination delivery., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To assess measles experience, practice, and knowledge by pediatricians in the context of resurgent US outbreaks in 2018-2019., Study Design: A nationally representative network of pediatricians were surveyed by email and mail from January to April 2020., Results: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). In the 3 years preceding the survey, 52% of the respondents reported awareness of measles cases in/near their community. Most thought that media reports about recent measles outbreaks had decreased delay/refusal of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (6% "greatly decreased"; 66% "moderately decreased"). More than 60% of the pediatricians responded correctly for 6 of 9 true/false measles knowledge items. Less than 50% responded correctly for 3 true/false items, including statements about pretravel MMR recommendations for a preschooler and measles isolation precautions. The most common resources that the pediatricians would "sometimes" or "often/always" consult for measles information were those from the American Academy of Pediatrics (72%), a state or local public health department (70%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (63%). More than 90% of the pediatricians reported correct clinical practice for MMR vaccination of a 9-month-old before international travel. More than one-third of the respondents did not have a plan for measles exposures in their clinic. Pediatricians aware of measles cases in/near their community in the previous 3 years and those working in a hospital/clinic or Health Maintenance Organization setting were more likely to have a plan for measles exposures., Conclusions: During this time of heightened risk for measles outbreaks, there are opportunities to strengthen the knowledge and implementation of measles pretravel vaccination and infection prevention and control recommendations among pediatricians., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rotavirus vaccine (RV) coverage levels for US infants are <80%., Methods: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians by internet/mail from April to June, 2019. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with difficulty administering the first RV dose (RV#1) by the maximum age., Results: Response rate was 68% (303/448). Ninety-nine percent of providers reported strongly recommending RV. The most common barriers to RV delivery overall (definite/somewhat of a barrier) were: parental concerns about vaccine safety overall (27%), parents wanting to defer (25%), parents not thinking RV was necessary (12%), and parent concerns about RV safety (6%). The most commonly reported reasons for nonreceipt of RV#1 by 4 to 5 months (often/always) were parental vaccine refusal (9%), hospitals not giving RV at discharge from nursery (7%), infants past the maximum age when discharged from neonatal intensive care unit/nursery (6%), and infant not seen before maximum age for well care visit (3%) or seen but no vaccine given (4%). Among respondents 4% strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed that they sometimes have difficulty giving RV#1 before the maximum age. Higher percentage of State Child Health Insurance Program/Medicaid-insured children in the practice and reporting that recommendations for timing of RV doses are too complicated were associated with reporting difficulty delivering the RV#1 by the maximum age., Conclusions: US pediatricians identified multiple, actionable issues that may contribute to suboptimal RV immunization rates including lack of vaccination prior to leaving nurseries after prolonged stays, infants not being seen for well care visits by the maximum age, missed opportunities at visits and parents refusing/deferring., (Copyright © 2021 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe, among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs), 1) changes made to routine childhood vaccination delivery as a result of the pandemic, and 2) perceived barriers to delivering vaccinations from March 2020 through the time of the survey., Methods: A nationally representative survey among Peds and FPs was administered by mail or Internet in October-December 2020., Results: Response rate was 64% (579/909). For children aged 0 to 2 years, among those who vaccinated that age group prepandemic (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 222), 5% of Peds and 15% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating these children at any time. For children aged 4 to 6 years (Peds n=264, FPs n = 229), 19% of Peds and 17% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. For children aged 11-18 years (Peds n = 265, FPs n = 251), 24% of Peds and 19% of FPs reported they had stopped vaccinating at any time. Nearly all reported returning to prepandemic vaccination services at the time of the survey. Factors most frequently reported as major/moderate barriers to providing vaccinations included fewer in-person visits because patients/parents were concerned about risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Peds, 52%; FPs, 54%), fewer in-person visits for sports clearance (Peds, 39%; FPs, 44%), and fewer back-to-school in-person visits because some children were in virtual learning (Peds, 25%; FPs, 33%)., Conclusions: Although some physicians reported interrupting vaccination services at some point during the pandemic, the majority reported continuing to provide vaccinations throughout, with essentially all returning to prepandemic vaccination services by end of 2020., (Copyright © 2021 Academic Pediatric Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations., Methods: In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 μg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed., Results: Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups., Conclusions: Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: To assess pediatricians' mumps knowledge and testing practices, to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with mumps testing practices, and to assess reporting and outbreak response knowledge and practices., Study Design: Between January and April 2020, we surveyed a nationally representative network of pediatricians. Descriptive statistics were generated for all items. The χ 2 test, t tests, and Poisson regression were used to compare physician and practice characteristics between respondents who would rarely or never versus sometimes or often/always test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting., Results: The response rate was 67% (297 of 444). For knowledge, more than one-half of the pediatricians responded incorrectly or "don't know" for 6 of the 9 true/false statements about mumps epidemiology, diagnosis, and prevention, and more than one-half reported needing additional guidance on mumps buccal swab testing. For testing practices, 59% of respondents reported they would sometimes (35%) or often/always (24%) test for mumps in a vaccinated 17-year-old with parotitis in a non-outbreak setting; older physicians, rural physicians, and physicians from the Northeast or Midwest were more likely to test for mumps. Thirty-six percent of the pediatricians reported they would often/always report a patient with suspected mumps to public health authorities., Conclusions: Pediatricians report mumps knowledge gaps and practices that do not align with public health recommendations. These gaps may lead to underdiagnosis and underreporting of mumps cases, delaying public health response measures and contributing to ongoing disease transmission., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended discontinuing the routine use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among adults aged ≥65 years and instead recommended PCV13 be used based on shared clinical decision making (SCDM)., Objectives: We wanted to assess among primary care physicians (1) knowledge and attitudes regarding the new SCDM PCV13 recommendation and (2) how the new recommendation will affect their likelihood of recommending PCV13 to adults aged ≥65 years., Design: This was done by mail and internet-based survey, which was conducted October 2019 through January 2020. The study was carried out on a nationally representative sample of general internists (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs)., Results: The response rate was 64% (617/968, GIM 57%, FP 71%). Only 41% of respondents were aware of the SCDM PCV13 recommendation in adults aged ≥65 years; 76% agreed (37% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") that their patients aged ≥65 years will get confused by having a SCDM recommendation for PCV13 and a routine recommendation for the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23); 60% agreed (18% "Strongly," 42% "Somewhat") that they were unsure of what points to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation with an adult aged ≥65 years about receiving PCV13. Just over 50% reported they would be less likely to recommend PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years as a result of the new recommendation, but 42% reported that their recommendation for PCV13 would not change., Conclusions: Word of the new ACIP recommendation for PCV13 for adults aged ≥65 years needs to be further disseminated. Investigation into why some physicians do not plan to change their recommendations is warranted., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) incorporated the terminology "shared clinical decision-making" (SDM) into recommendations for two adult vaccines., Objective: To assess among general internal medicine physicians (GIMs) and family physicians (FPs) nationally (1) attitudes about and experience with ACIP SDM recommendations, (2) knowledge of insurance reimbursement for vaccines with SDM recommendations, (3) how SDM recommendations are incorporated into vaccine forecasting software, and (4) physician and practice characteristics associated with not knowing how to implement SDM., Design: Survey conducted in October 2019-January 2020 by mail or internet based on preference., Participants: Networks of GIMs and FPs recruited from American College of Physicians (ACP) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) who practice ≥ 50% in primary care. Post-stratification quota sampling performed to ensure networks similar to ACP and AAFP memberships., Main Measures: Responses on 4-point Likert scales (attitudes/experiences), true/false options (knowledge), and categorical response options (forecasting). Multivariable modeling with outcome of "not knowing how to implement SDM" conducted., Key Results: Response rate was 64% (617/968). Most physicians strongly/somewhat agreed SDM requires more time than routine recommendations (90%FP; 95%GIM, p = 0.02) and that they need specific talking points to guide SDM discussions (79%FP; 84%GIM, p = NS). There was both support for SDM recommendations for certain vaccines (81%FP; 75%GIM, p = 0.06) and agreement that SDM creates confusion (64%FP; 76%GIM, p = 0.001). Only 41%FP and 43%GIM knew vaccines recommended for SDM would be covered by most health insurance. Overall, 38% reported SDM recommendations are displayed as "recommended" and 23% that they did not result in any recommendation in forecasting software. In adjusted multivariable models, GIMs [risk ratio 1.44 (1.15-1.81)] and females [1.28 (1.02-1.60)] were significantly associated with not knowing how to implement SDM recommendations CONCLUSIONS: To be successful in a primary care setting, SDM for adult vaccination will require thoughtful implementation with decision-making support for patients and physicians., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Several different types of influenza vaccine are licensed for use in adults in the USA including high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). HD-IIV is licensed for use in adults ≥ 65 years, and recommendations for use of LAIV have changed several times in recent years., Objective: We sought to examine family physicians' (FPs) and general internal medicine physicians' (GIMs) perceptions, knowledge, and practices for use of HD-IIV and LAIV during the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons., Design: E-mail and mail surveys conducted February-March 2017, January-February 2019., Participants: Nationally representative samples of FPs and GIMs., Main Measures: Surveys assessed HD-IIV practices (2017), knowledge and perceptions (2019), and LAIV knowledge and practices (2017, 2019)., Key Results: Response rates were 67% (620/930) in 2017 and 69% (642/926) in 2019. Many physicians believed HD-IIV is more effective than standard dose IIV in patients ≥ 65 years (76%) and reported their patients ≥ 65 years believe they need HD-IIV (67%). Most respondents incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years (88%); 65% "almost always/always" recommended HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years. Some physicians incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults < 65 years with cardiopulmonary disease (38%) or immunosuppression (48%); some respondents recommended HD-IIV for these groups (25% and 28% respectively). In 2017, 88% of respondents knew that ACIP recommended against using LAIV during the 2016-2017 influenza season, and 4% recommended LAIV to patients. In 2019, 63% knew that ACIP recommended that LAIV could be used during the 2018-2019 influenza season, and 8% recommended LAIV., Conclusions: Many physicians incorrectly thought ACIP had preferential recommendations for HD-IIV. Physicians should be encouraged to use any available age-appropriate influenza vaccine to optimize influenza vaccination particularly among older adults and patients with chronic conditions who are more vulnerable to severe influenza disease., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objectives: To evaluate among pediatricians and family physicians human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommendation practices for 11- to 12-year-old youth; report parental refusal/deferral of HPV vaccination; and report barriers to HPV vaccination changed over time., Study Design: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians and family physicians in 2008, 2010, 2013-2014, and 2018. Male vaccination questions were not asked in 2008; barriers and parental vaccine refusal questions were not asked in 2010., Results: Response rates were 80% in 2008 (680/848), 72% in 2010 (609/842), 70% in 2013-2014 (582/829), and 65% in 2018 (588/908). The proportion of physicians strongly recommending HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old patients increased from 53% in 2008 to 79% in 2018 for female patients and from 48% in 2014 to 76% in 2018 for male patients (both P < .0001). The proportion of physicians indicating ≥50% of parents refused/deferred HPV vaccination remained steady for female patients (24% in 2008 vs 22% in 2018, P = .40) and decreased for male patients (42% in 2014 vs 28% in 2018, P < .001). Physician barriers to providing HPV vaccination were rare and decreased over time. Increasing numbers of physicians reported perceived parental barriers of vaccine safety concerns (5% "major barrier" in 2008 vs 35% in 2018, P < .0001) and moral/religious concerns (5% in 2008 vs 25% in 2018, P < .0001)., Conclusions: Between 2008 and 2018, more primary care physicians reported recommending HPV vaccination for adolescents, fewer reported barriers, and more physicians reported parents who had vaccine safety or moral/religious concerns., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was created out of the need to formalize vaccine recommendations for the United States. Annually, ACIP delivers recommendations to the CDC director for guidance about United States vaccine use and publishes the Adult Immunization Schedule. Updated schedules feature changes to vaccine recommendations as well as changes to the schedule's usability for physicians. The objective of this study was to determine physicians' attitudes about the Adult Immunization Schedule. Surveys were administered to a sentinel physician network from October 2019 through January 2020. Physicians that responded were comfortable using the Adult Immunization Schedule, but reported confusion about some medical condition-based indications. Physicians reported a lack engagement with mobile applications, CDC Vaccine Schedules and Shots by STFM (the Society for Teachers of Family Medicine). Future work should focus on increasing clarity regarding the recommendations with medical condition-based indications and increasing knowledge of mobile applications for physicians., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Since 2009, pharmacists in all 50 states have been authorized to provide vaccinations to adults. The objective of this study was to assess primary care physicians' (PCPs) experiences with and attitudes about pharmacists administering vaccinations., Methods: Internet and mail survey of PCPs representative of American College of Physicians' and American Academy of Family Physicians' memberships., Results: Response rate was 69% (642/926). Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed (79% "Strongly," 19% "Somewhat") that it is their responsibility to assure their adult patients receive recommended vaccinations. Most respondents agreed that pharmacists either did not have access to patient medical information (33% "Strongly," 45% "Somewhat") or did not have adequate vaccination history (33% "Strongly," 41% "Somewhat"). The majority also agreed that pharmacists did not inform them when vaccinations were given (35% "Strongly," 39% "Somewhat") and did not enter vaccinations administered into immunization information systems (IISs) (20% "Strongly," 37% "Somewhat"). However, 83% agreed (31% "Strongly," 52% "Somewhat") that it is helpful to have pharmacists share the role of vaccinating adults., Conclusions: PCPs have mixed feelings about pharmacists delivering vaccines. Universal use of IISs by pharmacists could partially address physicians' concerns by providing a systematic way for pharmacists and physicians to share patient vaccination histories., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality disproportionately impact African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) communities. Adherence to daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), recommended by asthma guidelines in all but the mildest cases of asthma, is generally poor. As-needed ICS has shown promise as a patient-empowering asthma management strategy, but it has not been rigorously studied in AA/B or H/L patients or in a real-world setting. Design and Aim The PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) Study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic study which aims to assess whether a patient-guided, reliever-triggered ICS strategy called PARTICS (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled CorticoSteroid) can improve asthma outcomes in AA/B and H/L adult patient populations. In designing and implementing the study, the PREPARE research team has relied heavily on advice from AA/B and H/L Patient Partners and other stakeholders. Methods PREPARE is enrolling 1200 adult participants (600 AA/Bs, 600H/Ls) with asthma. Participants are randomized to PARTICS + Usual Care (intervention) versus Usual Care (control). Following a single in-person enrollment visit, participants complete monthly questionnaires for 15 months. The primary endpoint is annualized asthma exacerbation rate. Secondary endpoints include asthma control; preference-based quality of life; and days lost from work, school, or usual activities. Discussion The PREPARE study features a pragmatic design allowing for the real-world assessment of a patient-centered, reliever-triggered ICS strategy in AA/B and H/L patients. Outcomes of this study have the potential to offer powerful evidence supporting PARTICS as an effective asthma management strategy in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from asthma morbidity and mortality., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In June 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended shared clinical decision making (SCDM) regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians 1) recent practice regarding HPV vaccination for adults 27 to 45 years, 2) knowledge of HPV and the new SCDM recommendation, and 3) attitudes toward and anticipated effect of the new SCDM recommendation., Methods: From October to December 2019, we administered an Internet and mail survey to national networks of 494 general internist (GIM) and 474 family physician (FP) members of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians, respectively., Results: Response rate was 64% (617/968; GIM, 57%; FP, 71%). Fifty-eight percent were aware of the new ACIP recommendation; 42% had recommended HPV vaccination to adults 27 to 45 years, but most had administered HPV vaccine to very few of these patients (73% to 0% and 22% to 1 to 3). Fifty-five percent and 63% were unaware that HPV vaccination does not prevent progression of existing HPV-related cancers or infections, respectively and 57% were not sure what to emphasize when having a SCDM conversation about HPV vaccination. A majority reported they will be more likely recommend HPV vaccination to adults in the 27-to-45-year age range as a result of the new recommendation., Conclusions: Physicians are interested in recommending HPV vaccination for adults age 27 to 45 years despite ACIP not routinely recommending it in this age range. The majority need more education about the optimal use of HPV vaccine in this age group., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: This study assesses the following among primary care physicians: (1) the use of evidence-based strategies to improve adult vaccination rates, (2) the number of strategies employed simultaneously, and (3) characteristics associated with assessing adult vaccinations at each visit., Methods: An internet and mail survey was administered between December 2015 and January 2016 on primary care physicians designed to be representative of the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians memberships. Data analysis was conducted in 2019., Results: The response rate was 66% (617 of 935); 94% reported using electronic health records. Standing orders (84%) and electronic provider reminders at a visit (61%) were the most common strategies reported for influenza vaccine. Electronic provider reminders at a visit (53%) and recording a vaccination in an immunization registry (32%) were the most common strategies reported for all noninfluenza vaccines. Most physicians reported using 2 or more strategies, although this was more common for influenza (74%) than for noninfluenza (62%) vaccines. In multivariable analysis, physicians who reported assessing adult vaccinations at every patient visit were more likely to work in practices where decisions about purchasing and handling vaccines were made at a larger system level (RR=1.20, 95% CI=1.04,1.40), and they reported using electronic provider reminders (RR=1.38, 95% CI=1.15, 1.69) and standing orders (RR=1.45, 95% CI=1.21, 1.75) for all noninfluenza adult vaccines., Conclusions: Several strategies are being used to increase adult vaccination, particularly for the influenza vaccine. Investment in implementing standing orders and electronic clinical decision support for all routine adult vaccinations could help facilitate assessment of adult vaccinations at each visit and potentially improve adult vaccination rates., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the United States, human papillomavirus (HPV) catch-up vaccination has been nationally recommended for women and men of different ages. We surveyed national networks of primary care physicians specializing in family medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine to assess attitudes about HPV vaccination. Of 785 physicians, 730 (93.0%), were in favor of a change to harmonize the recommended catch-up vaccination age across genders; the most commonly cited reason was to simplify the immunization schedule (97.9%). After considering these and other data, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updated national policy to recommend catch-up vaccination for all persons through age 26 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: Standing orders are an effective way to increase vaccination rates, yet little is known about how pediatricians use this strategy for childhood immunizations. We assessed current use of, barriers to using, and factors associated with use of standing orders for vaccination among pediatricians., Methods: Internet and mail survey from June 2017 to September 2017 among a nationally representative sample of pediatricians. In the principal component analysis of barrier items, we identified 2 factors: physician responsibility and concerns about office processes. A multivariable analysis that included barrier scales and physician and/or practice characteristics was used to identify factors associated with use of standing orders., Results: The response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 59% of respondents reported using standing orders. The most commonly identified barriers among nonusers were concern that patients may mistakenly receive the wrong vaccine (68%), concern that patients prefer to speak with the physician about a vaccine before receiving it (62%), and belief that it is important for the physician to be the person who recommends a vaccine to patients (57%). These 3 items also made up the physician responsibility barrier factor. Respondents with higher physician responsibility scores were less likely to use standing orders (risk ratio: 0.59 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.66] per point increase). System-level decision-making about vaccines, suburban or rural location, and lower concerns about office processes scores were each associated with use of standing orders in the bivariate, but not the multivariable, analysis., Conclusions: Among pediatricians, use of standing orders for vaccination is far from universal. Interventions to increase use of standing orders should address physicians' attitudinal barriers as well as organizational factors., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: In 2017, three media stories regarding influenza vaccine may have impacted obstetricians' (OB) influenza vaccination practices: reports of reduced influenza vaccine effectiveness, a severe influenza season, and a possible increased risk of miscarriage among pregnant women receiving 2009 H1N1 vaccine in the 1st trimester who had received H1N1 vaccine the previous season (later disproven)., Objective: Describe OB's: (1) awareness of; (2) attitudes and experiences related to; and (3) reported alterations in practice as a result of these reports., Methods: A survey among a nationally representative sample of OBs April to June 2018., Results: Response rate was 65% (302/468). 88% of OBs were "very aware" of the severe season, 74% of lower effectiveness, and 25% of the miscarriage study (47% "completely unaware" of miscarriage study). Among those aware, 58%, 57%, and 16% reported ≥10% of pregnant patients initiated discussions about the severe season, lower effectiveness, and miscarriage study, respectively. Most (83%) agreed reports about increased severity increased their enthusiasm for recommending influenza vaccine; fewer agreed reports about the miscarriage study (18%) and lower vaccine effectiveness (12%) decreased their enthusiasm for recommending influenza vaccine. Providers were more likely to initiate discussion with patients about increased severity of the season than the other reports. However, 35% agreed the miscarriage study reports increased their concerns about influenza vaccine safety; 18% (n = 48) reported changing the way they recommended influenza vaccine. Of those, 17 (6% of all respondents) reported not recommending influenza vaccine to women during the 1st trimester and 26 (10% of all respondents) recommended it but were willing to delay until the 2nd trimester., Conclusions: During a season in which media stories could have influenced OB influenza vaccination behaviors in different directions, reports underscoring importance of influenza vaccine may have had more impact on OBs' recommendations than reports questioning vaccine safety or effectiveness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: The Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) provides vaccines for children who may not otherwise be vaccinated because of financial barriers. Pediatrician participation is crucial to the VFC's ongoing success. Our objectives were to assess, among a national sample of pediatricians, (1) VFC program participation, (2) perceived burden versus benefit of participation, and (3) knowledge and perception of a time-limited increased payment for VFC vaccine administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act., Methods: An electronic and mail survey was conducted from June 2017 to September 2017., Results: Response rate was 79% (372 of 471); 86% of pediatricians reported currently participating in the VFC; among those, 85% reported never having considered stopping, 10% considered it but not seriously, and 5% seriously considered it. Among those who had considered no longer participating ( n = 47), the most commonly reported reasons included difficulty meeting VFC record-keeping requirements (74%), concern about action by the VFC for noncompliance (61%), and unpredictable VFC vaccine supplies (59%). Participating pediatricians rated, on a scale from -5 (high burden) to +5 (high benefit), their overall perception of the VFC: 63% reported +4 or +5, 23% reported +1 to +3, 5% reported 0, and 9% reported -1 to -5. Of pediatricians, 39% reported awareness of temporary increased payment for VFC vaccine administration. Among those, 10% reported that their practice increased the proportion of Medicaid and/or VFC-eligible patients served on the basis of this change., Conclusions: For most pediatricians, perceived benefits of VFC participation far outweigh perceived burdens. To ensure the program's ongoing success, it will be important to monitor factors influencing provider participation., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Norovirus is a leading cause of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) across the age spectrum; candidate vaccines are in clinical trials. While norovirus diagnostic testing is increasingly available, stool testing may not be performed routinely, which can hamper surveillance and burden of disease estimates. Additionally, lack of knowledge of the burden of disease may inhibit provider vaccine recommendations, which could affect coverage rates and ultimately the impact of the vaccine. Our objectives were to understand physicians' stool testing practices in outpatients with AGE, and physician knowledge of norovirus, in order to improve surveillance and prepare for vaccine introduction., Methods: Internet and mail survey on AGE, norovirus, and future norovirus vaccines conducted January to March 2018 among national networks of primary care pediatricians, family practice and general internal medicine physicians., Results: The response rate was 59% (820/1383). During peak AGE season, physicians estimated they ordered stool tests for a median of 15% (interquartile range: 5-33%) of their outpatients with AGE. Stool tests were reported as more often available for ova and parasites, Clostridioides difficile, and bacterial culture (>95% for all specialties) than for norovirus (6-33% across specialties); even when available, norovirus-specific tests were infrequently ordered. Most providers were unaware that norovirus is a leading cause of AGE across all age groups (Pediatricians 80%, Family Practice 86%, General Internal Medicine 89%) or that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are ineffective against norovirus (Pediatricians 51%, Family Practice 66%, General Internal Medicine 62%). Concerns cited as major barriers to implementing a future norovirus vaccine included if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (General Internal Medicine 64%, Pediatricians 67%, Family Practice 74%) and lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination (Pediatricians 43%, General Internal Medicine 46%, Family Practice 50%). Factors that providers believed were 'not at all a barrier' or 'minor barrier' to new vaccine introduction included the belief that "my patients won't need this vaccine" (General Internal Medicine 78%, Family Practice 86%, Pediatricians 90%) and "my patients already get too many vaccines" (Family Practice 89%, General Internal Medicine 92%, Pediatricians 95%)., Conclusions: Primary care physicians had few concerns regarding future norovirus vaccine introduction, but have knowledge gaps on norovirus prevalence and hand hygiene for prevention. Also, physicians infrequently order stool tests for outpatients with AGE, which limits surveillance estimates that rely on physician-ordered stool diagnostics. Closing physician knowledge gaps on norovirus burden and transmission can help support norovirus vaccine introduction., Competing Interests: No commercial or financial conflicts of interest exist for any of the authors. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Background and Objectives: To examine, among pediatricians and family physicians (FPs) (1) human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine delivery practices, (2) delivery experiences, and (3) attitudes regarding new 2-dose HPV vaccination schedules., Methods: We surveyed nationally representative networks of pediatricians and FPs by Internet or mail from July 2018 to September 2018. Multivariable regression was used to assess factors associated with refusal or deferral rates of ≥50% among 11- to 12-year-old patients., Results: The response rate was 65% (302 pediatricians and 228 FPs included). Pediatricians who strongly recommended the HPV vaccine ranged from 99% for patients ≥15 years old (female) to 83% for those 11 to 12 years old (male); FPs ranged from 90% for patients ≥15 years old (female) to 66% for those 11 to 12 years old (male) ( P < .0001 between specialties). Sixty-five percent of pediatricians and 42% of FPs always or almost always used presumptive style when discussing the HPV vaccine ( P < .0001). Overall, 40% used standing orders and 42% had electronic alerts. Among pediatricians, the proportion reporting a refusal or deferral rate ≥50% was 19% for female patients and 23% for male patients 11 to 12 years old; FPs reported 27% and 36%, respectively. In the multivariable regression (both sexes), refusal or deferral was associated with physicians not strongly recommending the HPV vaccine to 11- to 12-year-old patients, not using a presumptive style, perceiving less resistance when introducing the HPV vaccine to a 13-year-old patient versus an 11- or 12-year-old patient, and anticipating an uncomfortable conversation when recommending the HPV vaccine to an 11- or 12-year-old patient. Eighty-nine percent of pediatricians and 79% of FPs reported that more adolescents <15 years old are completing the HPV series now that only 2 doses are recommended., Conclusions: Although most physicians strongly recommend the HPV vaccine to 11- to 12-year-old patients, our data reveal areas for improvement in recommendation and delivery methods. Most physicians perceive that the 2-dose schedule is resulting in higher HPV completion rates., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for all adults; however, little is known about how primary care physicians can communicate effectively with patients about influenza vaccination., Objective: To assess among general internal medicine (GIM) and family physicians (FP) regarding adult influenza vaccination: (1) recommendation and administration practices, (2) barriers to discussing and perceived reasons for patient refusal, and (3) factors associated with physician self-efficacy in convincing patients to be vaccinated., Design: Email and mail survey conducted in February-March 2017 PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of GIM and FP MAIN MEASURES: Factor analysis was used to group similar items for multivariable analysis of barriers and strategies associated with high physician self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated (defined as disagreeing that they could do nothing to change resistant patients' minds)., Key Results: Response rate was 67% (620/930). Ninety-eight percent always/almost always recommended influenza vaccine to adults ≥ 65 years, 90% for adults 50-64 years, and 75% for adults 19-49 years. Standing orders (76%) and electronic alerts (64%) were the most commonly used practice-based immunization strategies. Frequently reported barriers to discussing vaccination were other health issues taking precedence (41%), time (29%), and feeling they were unlikely to change patients' minds (24%). Fifty-eight percent of physicians reported high self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated; these providers reported fewer patient belief barriers contributing to vaccine refusal (RR = 0.93 per item; 95% CI (0.89-0.98); Cronbach's α = 0.70), were more likely to report using both fact- (1.08/item; (1.03-1.14); 0.66) and personal experience-based (1.07/item; (1.003-1.15); 0.65) communication strategies, and were more likely to work in practices using patient reminders for influenza vaccine (1.32; (1.16-1.50))., Conclusions: Physicians identified barriers to successfully communicating about adult influenza vaccination but few effective strategies to counter them. Interventions to promote self-efficacy in communication and under-utilized practice-based immunization strategies are needed.

Zoster vaccine live (ZVL [Zostavax]) has been recommended for the prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) among immunocompetent adults ≥60 years in the United States since 2008. To examine changes in healthcare providers' perceptions and practices related to HZ disease and vaccination, we administered surveys to national networks of primary care physicians in 2005, 2008, and 2016. Ten years after ZVL was first licensed, physicians were more likely to respond that they perceived HZ as a serious disease and more strongly recommended ZVL, and were less likely to report less likely to report several major barriers to HZ vaccination such as patient cost, vaccine effectiveness and competing medical concerns. Overall, physician attitudes appear to be more favorable towards zoster vaccination after a decade of availability of a HZ vaccine. The new recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV [Shingrix]) may benefit from physician's increased perception of the importance of HZ and HZ vaccination., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction . This study investigated participants' acceptance of a short messaging service (SMS) intervention designed to support asthma management, including suggestions regarding program delivery and message content. Methods . Individual and group interviews were conducted with patients from a safety-net health care system in Denver, Colorado. Eligible participants were English or Spanish speakers between the ages of 13 and 40 years, with diagnosed persistent asthma. All individual and group interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, translated from Spanish to English (where applicable), and analyzed for thematic content by experienced analysts using established qualitative content techniques. The qualitative software package ATLAS.ti was used for data analysis and management. Results . This study included a total of 43 participants. In general, participants were receptive toward the SMS program and supported the use of tailored and interactive messages. Adolescents supported the idea of enhancing care by sending messages to a support person, such as a parent or guardian. However, adults were less receptive toward this idea. Participants also preferred directive educational messages and cues to action, while general messages reminding them of their asthma diagnosis were viewed less favorably. Implications . The results from this study will inform a randomized control trial evaluating the efficacy of the SMS intervention.

Our objectives were to assess 1) effectiveness of using Colorado's Immunization Information System (CIIS) to send out vaccine reminder/recalls (R/Rs) centrally vs. usual care for adult vaccine delivery within an accountable care organization (ACO) and 2) practice staff's perception of centralized R/R. From 9/2016 to 4/2017, we conducted a randomized controlled trial among adults enrolled in a Medicaid ACO at six healthcare entities. Adults were divided into two strata: 15,153 age 19-64 and 616 age 65+. Adults age 19-64 who needed influenza and/or Tdap vaccine, and adults age 65+ who needed influenza, and/or Tdap, and/or a pneumococcal vaccine were randomized to receive up to 3 R/Rs by autodialed telephone and mail or usual care. Documentation of receipt of any needed vaccines in CIIS within six months was the primary outcome. We assessed intervention effectiveness using mixed effect logistic regression. Thirteen semi-structured exit interviews were conducted with staff from each healthcare entity. The intervention was not associated with the primary outcome for the age 19-64 population [OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.98-1.15)] or age 65+ population [(OR 0.96 (0.69-1.32)]. Practice staff perceived the intervention to be beneficial and not burdensome. Perceived barriers included lack of availability of appointments and adults receiving only influenza vaccine when other vaccines were needed. In conclusion, centralized R/R was not effective at improving adult vaccination rates in a Medicaid ACO. Future studies should consider better harmonizing vaccine centralized R/Rs with vaccine delivery efforts within the practice setting. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02133391., Competing Interests: The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Introduction: Many non-pregnant women see obstetrician-gynecologists as their sole source of medical care, yet little is known about vaccination practices of obstetrician-gynecologists for non-pregnant patients. The objectives were to assess, among a national sample of obstetrician-gynecologists, practices related to vaccine delivery in non-pregnant patients and factors associated with stocking and administering more than three different vaccines to non-pregnant patients., Methods: E-mail and mail surveys were administered July-October 2015, with analyses performed during October-November 2015 and April-June 2018., Results: The response rate was 73% (353/482). Human papillomavirus (92%); influenza (82%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines (50%) were the vaccines most commonly assessed, with the remaining vaccines assessed by <40% of respondents. Vaccines most commonly administered by obstetrician-gynecologists to non-pregnant patients included human papillomavirus (81%); influenza (70%); and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (54%). The remaining vaccines were administered by <30% of obstetrician-gynecologists. Factors associated with routinely administering more than three vaccines to non-pregnant patients included working in a hospital-, public health-, or university-associated clinic (RR=1.87, 95% CI=1.35, 2.58, referent to private practice); a larger practice (more than five providers; RR=1.54, 95% CI=1.05, 2.27); perceiving fewer financial barriers (RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.57, 0.96); fewer practice-associated barriers (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.55, 0.92); and greater patient barriers (RR=1.62, 95% CI=1.33, 1.98)., Conclusions: Human papillomavirus; influenza; and tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccines are the only vaccines routinely assessed and administered to non-pregnant patients by most obstetrician-gynecologists. Given their role as the sole source of care for many women, obstetrician-gynecologists could make a positive impact on the vaccination status of their non-pregnant patients., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Deaths attributable to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among adults are estimated to exceed 11,000 annually, and annual adult hospitalizations for influenza and RSV may be comparable. RSV vaccines for older adults are in development. We assessed the following among primary care physicians (PCPs) who treat adults: (1) perception of RSV disease burden; (2) current RSV testing practices; and (3) anticipated barriers to adoption of an RSV vaccine., Methods: We administered an Internet and mail survey from February to March 2017 to national networks of 930 PCPs., Results: The response rate was 67% (620/930). Forty-nine percent of respondents (n = 303) were excluded from analysis as they reported never or rarely caring for an adult patient with possible RSV in the past year. Among respondents who reported taking care of RSV patients (n = 317), 73% and 57% responded that in patients ≥ 50 years, influenza is generally more severe than RSV and that they rarely consider RSV as a potential pathogen, respectively. Most (61%) agreed that they do not test for RSV because there is no treatment. The most commonly reported anticipated barriers to a RSV vaccine were potential out-of-pocket expenses for patients if the vaccine is not covered by insurance (93%) and lack of reimbursement for vaccination (74%)., Conclusions: Physicians reported little experience with RSV disease in adults. They are generally not testing for it and the majority believe that influenza disease is more severe. Physicians will require more information about RSV disease burden in adults and the potential need for a vaccine in their adult patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe 1) obstetrician-gynecologists' (ob-gyns') perceptions of the frequency of vaccine refusal among pregnant patients and perceived reasons for refusal and 2) ob-gyns' strategies used when encountering vaccine refusal and perceived effectiveness of those strategies., Methods: We conducted an email and mail survey among a nationally representative network of ob-gyns from March 2016 to June 2016., Results: The response rate was 69% (331/477). Health care providers perceived that pregnant women more commonly refused influenza vaccine than tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine: 62% of respondents reported 10% or greater of pregnant women they care for in a typical month refused influenza vaccine compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine. The most commonly reported reasons for vaccine refusal were patients' belief that influenza vaccine makes them sick (48%), belief they are unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease (38%), general worries about vaccines (32%), desire to maintain a natural pregnancy (31%), and concern that their child could develop autism as a result of maternal vaccination (25%). The most commonly reported strategies ob-gyns used to address refusal were stating that it is safe to receive vaccines in pregnancy (96%), explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk (90%), or that not getting the vaccine puts the pregnant woman's health at risk (84%). The strategy perceived as most effective was stating that not getting vaccinated puts the fetus or newborn at risk., Conclusion: Ob-gyns perceive vaccine refusal among pregnant women as common and refusal of influenza vaccine as more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine. Emphasizing the risk of disease to the fetus or newborn may be an effective strategy to increase vaccine uptake.

Background: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has routinely recommended zoster vaccine live (ZVL) for adults  ≥60 since 2008; only 33% of eligible adults received it by 2016. A recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was licensed in 2017 and ACIP recommended in January 2018. Our objectives were to assess among primary care physicians (1) practices and attitudes regarding ZVL and (2) awareness of RZV., Methods: We administered an Internet and mail survey from July to September 2016 to national networks of 953 primary care physicians., Results: Response rate was 65% (603/923). Ninety-three % of physicians recommended ZVL to adults ≥60, but fewer recommended it to adults ≥60 with a prior history of zoster (88%), adults > 85 (62%) and adults ≥60 on low-dose methotrexate (42%). Several physicians recommended ZVL in ways that are not recommended by ACIP including to adults 50-59 (50%), adults ≥60 with HIV (33%), and adults ≥60 on high dose prednisone (≥20 mg/day) (27%). Nineteen percent of physicians stocked and administered ZVL and did not refer patients elsewhere for vaccination, 37% did not stock and only referred patients to receive it, and 44% both stocked/administered and referred elsewhere. Twenty-three % (n = 115) of physicians who had ever administered ZVL in the office (n = 490) had stopped, citing primarily financial issues (90%). Only 5% were 'very aware' of RZV., Conclusions: Physicians report not recommending ZVL to certain ACIP-recommended groups, but report recommending it to some groups for which the vaccine should be avoided. Implementation of recommendations for RZV will need to consider financial barriers and the complex patchwork of office-based and pharmacy delivery ZVL has encountered., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

: media-1vid110.1542/5799875076001PEDS-VA&#95;2018-0344 Video Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that 16- to 23-year-olds may be vaccinated with the serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccine on the basis of individual clinical decision-making (Category B). We assessed the following among US pediatricians and family physicians (FPs): (1) practices regarding MenB vaccine delivery, (2) factors influencing a decision to recommend the MenB vaccine, and (3) factors associated with discussing the MenB vaccine., Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of pediatricians and FPs via e-mail and Internet from October 2016 to December 2016., Results: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). During routine visits, 51% of pediatricians and 31% of FPs reported always or often discussing MenB vaccine. Among those who discussed often or always, 91% recommended vaccination; among those who never or rarely discussed, 11% recommended. We found that 73% of pediatricians and 41% of FPs currently administered the MenB vaccine. Although many providers reported not knowing about factors influencing recommendation decisions, MenB disease outbreaks (89%), disease incidence (62%), and effectiveness (52%), safety (48%), and duration of protection of MenB vaccine (39%) increased the likelihood of recommendation, whereas the Category B recommendation (45%) decreased likelihood. Those somewhat or not at all aware of the MenB vaccine (risk ratio 0.32 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.41]) and those practicing in a health maintenance organization (0.39 [0.18-0.87]) were less likely, whereas those aware of disease outbreaks in their state (1.25 [1.08-1.45]) were more likely to discuss MenB vaccine., Conclusions: Primary care physicians have significant gaps in knowledge about MenB disease and the MenB vaccine, and this appears to be a major driver of the decision not to discuss the vaccines., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: In 2015, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made a category B recommendation for use of serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines, meaning individual clinical decision-making should guide recommendations. This was the first use of a category B recommendation pertaining to a large population and the first such recommendation for adolescents. As part of a survey regarding MenB vaccine, our objectives were to assess among pediatricians (Peds) and family physicians (FPs) nationally: 1) knowledge of the meaning of category A versus B recommendations and insurance coverage implications, and 2) attitudes about category A and B recommendations., Methods: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of Peds and FPs via e-mail and mail from October to December 2016., Results: The response rate was 72% (660 of 916). Although >80% correctly identified the definition of a category A recommendation, only 24% were correct about the definition for category B. Fifty-five percent did not know that private insurance would pay for vaccines recommended as category B, and 51% did not know that category B-recommended vaccines would be covered by the Vaccines for Children program. Fifty-nine percent found it difficult to explain category B recommendations to patients; 22% thought ACIP should not make category B recommendations; and 39% were in favor of category B recommendations because they provide leeway in decision-making., Conclusions: For category B recommendations to be useful in guiding practice, primary care clinicians will need to have a better understanding of their meaning, their implications for insurance payment, and guidance on how to discuss them with parents and patients., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Physician questionnaires are commonly used in health services research; however, many survey studies are limited by low response rate. We describe the effectiveness of a method to maximize survey response without using incentives, the effectiveness of survey reminders over time, and differences in response rates based on survey mode and primary care specialty. As part of a study to assess vaccine policy issues, 13 separate surveys were conducted by internet and mail over the period of 2008 to 2013. Surveys were conducted among pre-recruited networks of pediatricians, family physicians and general internists. Each network was active for 2 years and responded to 3-6 surveys. Physicians who indicated preference to respond through an online survey received up to 9 e-mailed requests to complete the questionnaire and up to 2 mailed questionnaires. Physicians who chose to respond by mail received up to 3 mailed questionnaires and a reminder postcard. For 6 of the 13 surveys conducted over the 6 year period, an additional mailing using a hand-addressed envelope was mailed to non-responders at the end of the usual protocol. Effectiveness of survey methods was measured by response rates. The overall response rates varied from 66‒83%. Response rates declined 17 percentage-points on average between the first and last surveys administered within each physician network. The internet group consistently had higher response rates than the mail group (74% vs. 62% on average). An additional mailing in a hand-written envelope boosted the final response rate by 11 percentage-points. Self-selection of survey mode, multiple reminders, and hand-written envelopes are effective methods for maximizing response rates in physician surveys., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: A proven, but underutilized, method to increase current low vaccination rates is reminder/recall. Centralized reminder/recall using an Immunization Information System reduces the burden of an individual practice conducting reminder/recall. The objectives were to assess the effectiveness of centralized vaccine reminder/recall on improving adult vaccination rates using Colorado's Immunization Information System., Study Design: This study is a pragmatic RCT., Setting/participants: Denver Health patients were divided into three strata: 25,039 individuals aged 19-64 years without a high-risk condition for pneumococcal disease, 16,897 individuals aged 19-64 years with a high-risk condition, and 5,332 individuals aged ≥65 years. Data were collected from October 2015 to April 2016 and analyzed between September 2016 and June 2017., Intervention: Adults aged 19-64 years without a high-risk condition who needed influenza or tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis vaccine or both, and adults with a high-risk condition and adults aged ≥65 years who needed influenza, or tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis, or pneumococcal vaccine, or all three vaccines were randomized to receive up to three reminder/recalls or usual care., Main Outcome Measures: Documentation of receipt of any needed vaccine in Immunization Information System ≤6 months after the reminder/recall was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome included implementation costs of the reminder/recall effort. A mixed effects model assessed the association between the intervention and receipt of any needed vaccine while controlling for gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance type, and history of vaccine refusal., Results: The intervention was associated with receipt of any needed vaccine in the adults aged ≥65 years population (AOR=1.15, 95% CI=1.02, 1.30), but not the other two populations. Influenza vaccine was the source of this difference, with 32.0% receiving a vaccine in intervention versus 28.6% in usual-care groups (p≤0.01). Start-up and implementation costs per person were $0.86. In the population aged ≥65 years, 29.4 patients would need to be contacted to gain one additional vaccination., Conclusions: Centralized reminder/recall was effective at increasing influenza vaccination rates in adults aged ≥65 years over a short time period, without burdening the practices, and at a reasonable cost., Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02133391., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Financial concerns are often cited by physicians as a barrier to administering routinely recommended vaccines to adults. The purpose of this study was to assess perceived payments and profit from administering recommended adult vaccines and vaccine purchasing practices among general internal medicine (GIM) and family medicine (FM) practices in the United States., Methods: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey from January-June 2014 of practices stratified by specialty (FM or GIM), affiliation (standalone or ≥ 2 practice sites), and level of financial decision-making (independent or larger system level) in FM and GIM practices that responded to a previous survey on adult vaccine financing and provided contact information for follow-up. Practice personnel identified as knowledgeable about vaccine financing and billing responded to questions about payments relative to vaccine purchase price and payment for vaccine administration, perceived profit on vaccination, claim denial, and utilization of various purchasing strategies for private vaccine stocks. Survey items on payment and perceived profit were assessed for various public and private payer types. Descriptive statistics were calculated and responses compared by physician specialty, practice affiliation, and level of financial decision-making., Results: Of 242 practices approached, 43% (n = 104) completed the survey. Reported payment levels and perceived profit varied by payer type. Only for preferred provider organizations did a plurality of respondents report profiting on adult vaccination services. Over half of respondents reported losing money vaccinating adult Medicaid beneficiaries. One-quarter to one-third of respondents reported not knowing about Medicare Part D payment levels for vaccine purchase and vaccine administration, respectively. Few respondents reported negotiating with manufacturers or insurance plans on vaccine purchase prices or payments for vaccination., Conclusions: Practices vaccinating adults may benefit from education and technical assistance related to vaccine financing and billing and greater use of purchasing strategies to decrease upfront vaccine cost., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: U.S. obstetrician/gynecologists play a critical role as vaccinators of pregnant women. However, little is known about their current immunization practices. Thus, study objectives were to determine (1) practices related to assessment of vaccination status and vaccine delivery for pregnant patients; (2) barriers to stocking and administering vaccines; and (3) factors associated with administering both influenza and tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccines., Methods: An e-mail and mail survey among a national sample of obstetrician/gynecologists conducted July-October 2015 (analysis August 2016-August 2017)., Results: The response rate was 73.2% (353/482). Among obstetrician/gynecologists caring for pregnant women (n=324), vaccination status was most commonly assessed for influenza (97%), Tdap (92%), and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines (88%). Vaccines most commonly administered included influenza (85%) and Tdap (76%). Few respondents reported administering other vaccines to pregnant patients. More physicians reported using standing orders for influenza (66%) than Tdap (39%). Other evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccine uptake were less frequently used (electronic decision support, 42%; immunization information system to record [13%] or assess vaccination status [11%]; reminder/recall, 7%). Barriers most commonly reported were provider financial barriers, yet provider attitudinal barriers were rare. Providers who administered both influenza and Tdap vaccines were more likely to be female, perceive fewer financial and practice barriers, less likely to be in private practice, and perceive more patient barriers., Conclusions: Although most obstetrician/gynecologists administer some vaccines to pregnant women, the focus remains on influenza and Tdap. Financial barriers and infrequent use of evidence-based strategies for increasing vaccination uptake may be hindering delivery of a broader complement of adult vaccines in obstetrician/gynecologist offices., (Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in series with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for at-risk adults ≥19; in 2014, it expanded this recommendation to adults ≥65. Primary care physicians' practice, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding these recommendations are unknown., Methods: Primary care physicians throughout the U.S. were surveyed by E-mail and post from December 2015 to January 2016., Results: Response rate was 66% (617 of 935). Over 95% of respondents reported routinely assessing adults' vaccination status and recommending both vaccines. A majority found the current recommendations to be clear (50% "very clear," 38% "somewhat clear"). Twenty percent found the upfront cost of purchasing PCV13, lack of insurance coverage, inadequate reimbursement, and difficulty determining vaccination history to be "major barriers" to giving these vaccines. Knowledge of recommendations varied, with 83% identifying the PCV13 recommendation for adults ≥65 and only 21% identifying the recommended interval between PCV13 and PPSV23 in an individual <65 at increased risk., Conclusions: Almost all surveyed physicians reported recommending both pneumococcal vaccines, but a disconnect seems to exist between perceived clarity and knowledge of the recommendations. Optimal implementation of these recommendations will require addressing knowledge gaps and reported barriers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Little is known about adult patients' attitudes toward vaccination and preferences for reminder/recall. The objective of this study was to determine patient perspectives on adult vaccines generally; attitudes about Tdap, pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPSV-23), and seasonal influenza vaccines specifically; and preferences for adult reminder/recall delivery. Twelve focus groups were conducted with 68 patients in a safety net health system. The sample was stratified by preferred language (English or Spanish), age (18-64 or 65+), and health status (with or without chronic conditions). Participants expressed positive attitudes toward vaccines generally, but had little knowledge of specific vaccines other than influenza, about which they expressed concerns. Although none reported previous experience receiving reminder/recall notices for adult vaccines, all were in favor of receiving them. These results suggest potential patient interest in greater adoption of evidence-based methods to improve immunization rates, and highlight the need for improved communication between providers and patients about adult vaccines., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Vaccines represent a significant portion of primary care practice expenses. Our objectives were to determine among pediatric (Ped) and family medicine (FM) practices: 1) relative payment for vaccine purchase and administration and estimated profit margin according to payer type, 2) strategies used to reduce vaccine purchase costs and increase payment, and 3) whether practices have stopped providing vaccines because of finances., Methods: A national survey conducted from April through September 2011 among Ped and FM practitioners in private, single-specialty practices., Results: The response rate was 51% (221 of 430). Depending on payer type, 61% to 79% of practices reported that payment for vaccine purchase was at least 100% of purchase price and 34% to 74% reported that payment for vaccine administration was at least $11. Reported strategies to reduce vaccine purchase cost were online purchasing (81% Ped, 36% FM), prompt pay (78% Ped, 49% FM), and bulk order (65% Ped, 49% FM) discounts. Fewer than half of practices used strategies to increase payment; in a multivariable analysis, practices with ≥5 providers were more likely to use strategies compared with practices with fewer providers (adjusted odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-4.62). When asked if they had stopped purchasing vaccines because of financial concerns, 12% of Ped practices and 23% of FM practices responded 'yes,' and 24% of Ped and 26% of FM practices responded 'no, but have seriously considered.', Conclusions: Practices report variable payment for vaccination services from different payer types. Practices might benefit from increased use of strategies to reduce vaccine purchase costs and increase payment for vaccine delivery., (Copyright © 2017 Academic Pediatric Association. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess physicians': 1) knowledge and attitudes about hepatitis A disease and hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine, 2) child care and school HepA vaccine mandates, 3) practices related to HepA vaccine delivery, 4) factors associated with strongly recommending HepA vaccine to all 1- to 2-year-olds, and 5) feasibility of implementing HepA catch-up vaccination at health maintenance visits., Methods: A national survey was conducted among representative networks of pediatricians and family medicine physicians (FMs) from March to June, 2014 via e-mail or mail on the basis of provider preference., Results: Response rates were 81% (356 of 440) among pediatricians and 75% (348 of 464) among FMs. Less than 50% correctly identified that hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection is usually asymptomatic in young children and that morbidity from HAV disease increases with age. Ninety-two percent of pediatricians and 59% of FMs strongly recommend HepA vaccine for all 1- to 2-year-olds. In addition to practice specialty, belief that HepA vaccine is required for kindergarten enrollment was the most robust predictor of strong physician recommendation., Conclusions: Gaps in knowledge regarding HAV infection and hepatitis A recommendations and lack of a strong recommendation for routine HepA vaccination of young children among FMs likely contribute to suboptimal coverage. Closing knowledge gaps and addressing barriers that prevent all physicians from strongly recommending HepA vaccine to 1- to 2-year-olds could help increase HepA vaccine coverage and ultimately improve population protection against HAV infection., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Immunization information systems (IISs) are highly effective for increasing vaccination rates but information about how primary care physicians use them is limited., Methods: Pediatricians, family physicians (FPs), and general internists (GIMs) were surveyed by e-mail and mail from January 2015 to April 2015 from all states with an existing IIS. Providers were recruited to be representative of national provider organization memberships. Multivariable log binomial regression examined factors associated with IIS use (October 2015-April 2016)., Results: Response rates among pediatricians, FPs, and GIMs, respectively, were 75% (325/435), 68% (310/459), and 63% (272/431). A proportion of pediatricians (5%), FPs (14%), and GIMs (48%) did not know there was a state/local IIS; 81%, 72%, and 27% reported using an IIS (p<0.0001). Among those who used IISs, 64% of pediatricians, 61% of FPs, and 22% of GIMs thought the IIS could tell them a patient's immunization needs; 22%, 29%, and 51% did not know. The most frequently reported major barriers to use included the IIS not updating the electronic medical record (29%, 28%, 35%) and lack of ability to submit data electronically (22%, 27%, 31%). Factors associated with lower IIS use included FP (adjusted risk ratio=0.85; 95% CI=0.75, 0.97) or GIM (adjusted risk ratio=0.33; 95% CI=0.25, 0.42) versus pediatric specialty and older versus younger provider age (adjusted risk ratio=0.96; 95 CI%=0.94, 0.98)., Conclusions: There are substantial gaps in knowledge of IIS capabilities, especially among GIMs; barriers to interoperability between IISs and electronic medical records affect all specialties. Closing these gaps may increase use of proven IIS functions including decision support and reminder/recall., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Financial barriers to adult vaccination are poorly understood. Our objectives were to assess among general internists (GIM) and family physicians (FP) shortly after Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation: (1) proportion of adult patients deferring or refusing vaccines because of cost and frequency of physicians not recommending vaccines for financial reasons; (2) satisfaction with reimbursement for vaccine purchase and administration by payer type; (3) knowledge of Medicare coverage of vaccines; and (4) awareness of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA., Methods: We administered an Internet and mail survey from June to October 2013 to national networks of 438 GIMs and 401 FPs., Results: Response rates were 72% (317/438) for GIM and 59% (236/401) for FP. Among physicians who routinely recommended vaccines, up to 24% of GIM and 30% of FP reported adult patients defer or refuse certain vaccines for financial reasons most of the time. Physicians reported not recommending vaccines because they thought the patient's insurance would not cover it (35%) or the patient could be vaccinated more affordably elsewhere (38%). Among physicians who saw patients with this insurance, dissatisfaction ('very dissatisfied') was highest for payments received from Medicaid (16% vaccine purchase, 14% vaccine administration) and Medicare Part B (11% vaccine purchase, 11% vaccine administration). Depending on the vaccine, 36-71% reported not knowing how Medicare covered the vaccine. Thirty-seven percent were 'not at all aware' and 19% were 'a little aware' of vaccine-specific provisions of the ACA., Conclusions: Patients are refusing and physicians are not recommending adult vaccinations for financial reasons. Increased knowledge of private and public insurance coverage for adult vaccinations might position physicians to be more likely to recommend vaccines and better enable them to refer patients to other vaccine providers when a particular vaccine or vaccines are not offered in the practice., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 (p<0.001). All Grade A USPSTF recommendations were considered more important than Tdap/Td and herpes zoster vaccines. For the hypothetical patient aged 30 years, the number and percentage of physicians who reported that the Tdap/Td vaccine (377/604; 62%, 95% CI 59, 66) is very important was greater than the number and percentage who reported that the seasonal influenza vaccine (263/605; 43%, 95% CI 40, 47) is very important (p<0.001), and all Grade A and Grade B USPSTF recommendations were more often reported as very important than was any vaccine. A total of 172 of 587 physicians (29%) found aspects of the adult immunization schedule confusing. Among physicians aware of "Welcome to Medicare" and annual wellness visits, 492/514 (96%, 95% CI 94, 97) and 329/496 (66%, 95% CI 62, 70), respectively, reported having conducted fewer than 10 such visits in the previous month., Conclusions: 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.