Search

Objectives In 2012, onetime hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening was recommended for all baby boomers (people born during 1945-1965) in the United States, but only 4.0%-12.9% of baby boomers have ever had a screening ordered by a health care provider. This study examined the HCV screening prevalence among adult patients in a large academic health care system and assessed factors associated with the completion of screening when ordered for baby boomers. Methods We defined HCV screening completion as the completion of an HCV antibody test when it was ordered. We used electronic health records to examine HCV screening completion rates among adults (N = 106 630) from August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2020, by birth cohort. Among baby boomers whose health care provider ordered HCV screening, we examined frequency and percentages of HCV screening completion by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. We conducted univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses to assess factors associated with HCV screening completion among baby boomers. Results During the study period, 73.0% of baby boomers completed HCV screening when it was ordered. HCV completion did not differ by sex or race and ethnicity among baby boomers. Baby boomers with Medicare supplemental health insurance compared with commercial health insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.87) and those seeing only advanced practice professionals compared with specialty care physicians (aOR = 2.24) were more likely to complete HCV screening when it was ordered. Conclusions Noncompletion of HCV screening is one of many barriers along the HCV treatment continuum. Our findings suggest a need for interventions targeting systems, health care providers, and patients to increase HCV screening rates in the United States.

Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) results in an increased risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Only 15% of baby boomers (born 1945–1965) have ever been screened. We aimed to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening for baby boomers in a primary care setting. This study included two phases: intervention development (phase 1) and feasibility testing (phase 2). In phase 1, we partnered with a Community Advisory Board and a Provider Advisory Board to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening to be delivered to both providers and patients in primary care. Phase 2 assessed intervention feasibility, acceptability, and usability by conducting Concurrent Think Aloud (CTA) interviews and surveys using previously validated scales with patients (n = 8) and providers (n = 7). Phase 1 results: The patient-level intervention included a mailed reminder letter and CDC pamphlet and a 7-min in-clinic educational video. The provider-level intervention included a 30-min educational session and monthly performance feedback e-mails. Phase 2 results: Qualitatively, both the patient and provider-level intervention were feasible, acceptable, and usable by the target audiences. Quantitatively, on a 1–4 scale, the range of patient-level scores was 3.00–4.00 and provider level was 3.50–4.00 for feasibility, acceptability, and usability. This intervention could improve HCV screening among a high-risk population and therefore reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This project developed a feasible, acceptable, and usable multilevel intervention aimed at increasing HCV screening in primary care.

Despite the release of a growing number of direct-acting antivirals and evolving policy landscape, many of those diagnosed with hepatitis C virus (HCV) have not received treatment. Those from vulnerable populations are at particular risk of being unable to access treatment, threatening World Health Organization (WHO) HCV elimination goals. The aim of this study was to understand the association between direct-acting antivirals approvals, HCV-related policy changes and access to HCV virus treatment in Indiana, and to explore access to treatment by race, birth cohort and insurance type. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults with HCV from 05/2011-03/2021, using statewide electronic health data. Nine policy and treatment changes were defined a priori. A Lowess curve evaluated treatment trends over time. Monthly screening and treatment rates were examined. Multivariable logistic regression explored predictors of treatment. The population (N = 10,336) was 13.4% Black, 51.8% was born after 1965 and 44.7% was Medicaid recipients. Inflections in the Lowess curve defined four periods: (1) Interferon + DAA, (2) early direct-acting antivirals, (3) Medicaid expansion/optimization and (4) Medicaid restrictions (fibrosis/prescriber) removed. The largest increase in monthly treatment rates was during period 4, when Medicaid prescriber and fibrosis restrictions were removed (2.4 persons per month [PPM] in period 1 to 72.3 PPM in period 4, p 0.001; 78.0% change in slope). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed being born after 1965 (vs. before 1945; OR 0.69; 95% 0.49-0.98) and having Medicaid (vs. private insurance; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.42-0.53), but not race was associated with lower odds of being treated. In conclusion, DAAs had limited impact on HCV treatment rates until Medicaid restrictions were removed. Additional policies may be needed to address HCV treatment-related age and insurance disparities.

To understand healthcare experiences among patients with uterine fibroids (fibroids) across the continuum of care, from early symptoms through diagnosis, treatment, and management, while also investigating health disparities.We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with patients with fibroids. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis. Eligible participants were women aged 18 and over, residing within 75 miles of one of the two recruitment locations (Tippecanoe or Marion County) in Indiana, USA.Women experienced myriad physical symptoms, which often manifested into psychological and sexual disturbances and infiltrated all aspects of daily life. Internet searches were frequently mentioned as their main information source. Fertility became a prominent factor in deciding treatment options. However, health disparities prevented some from receiving quality fibroids healthcare. Some women reported staying home during COVID-19 pandemic facilitated the management of physical symptoms. Overall, participants advocated for greater fibroids awareness and education.Results highlight barriers and facilitators to fibroids-related decisions, behaviors, and outcomes. Translation of research to practice was guided by a combined Social-Ecological Model and social determinants of health framework for development of strategic interventions.Interventions should aim to improve fibroids healthcare access, education and awareness, and patient-provider communication for minority, rural, and low socioeconomic status communities disproportionately impacted by fibroids.

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

HPV vaccine is recommended for 27–45 year olds in the U.S. based on a shared clinical decision. This study examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of adults 27–45 years old and the association with the likelihood of asking a healthcare provider about the HPV vaccine and the likelihood of getting the HPV vaccine. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults aged 27–45 years between April–May 2020 (n = 691). Primary outcomes were likelihood of asking their provider about the HPV vaccine and likelihood of getting the HPV vaccine. Demographic variables, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were covariates. Adjusted models were estimated for each outcome variable with a Poisson distribution and log function. More than half (55.7%) were likely to ask their provider about the HPV vaccine, but less than half (42.9%) were likely to get the HPV vaccine. Likelihood of asking their provider about the HPV vaccine was significantly associated with perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccine (aOR = 2.45; 95%CI = 1.69–3.57). Likelihood of receiving the vaccine was associated with attitudes (aOR = 1.04; 95%CI = 1.01–1.07), perceived effectiveness against HPV infection (aOR = 4.03; 95%CI = 1.20–13.53), and perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccine (aOR = 4.31; 95%CI = 2.64–7.03). Our findings suggest increasing positive attitudes, perceived effectiveness against infection, and perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccination are important factors to address when facilitating a shared clinical decision for HPV vaccination. Understanding factors associated with likelihood of discussing and receiving the HPV vaccine among people aged 27–45 years is important to successfully implement the guidelines for shared clinical decision-making.

In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extended the licensure for human papillomavirus vaccination to include everyone aged 27-45 years. In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a recommendation that adults aged 27-45 years and their providers engage in shared clinical decision making about human papillomavirus vaccination. In addition, in 2019, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reiterated that all previously unvaccinated individuals receive catch-up vaccination through age 26 years. This study estimates the pre-recommendation prevalence of human papillomavirus vaccination and factors associated with vaccination in 2 age groups (19-26 years [young adults] and 27-45 years [mid-adults]), forming a baseline to monitor future coverage among U.S. adults.The final sample included 9,744 individuals (2,522 young adults and 7,222 mid-adults) who participated in the 2017 National Health Interview Survey. The main outcomes were receipt of 1 or more human papillomavirus vaccination and whether the participant had been vaccinated as an adult. Demographic characteristics and healthcare factors were included as covariates in statistical analyses.Population estimate of receiving 1 or more human papillomavirus vaccine doses among young adults was 36.3% (female: 51.5%, male: 21.2%; p0.001) and 9.7% for mid-adults (females: 15.8%, males: 3.2%; p0.001). In the best-fit model, age was inversely associated with vaccination for mid-adults (female: OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.81, 0.86; male: OR=0.86; 95% CI=0.82, 0.90) and male young adults (OR=0.79, 95% CI=0.71, 0.88). Of the entire vaccinated sample aged 19-45 years, 26.6% had received their first vaccination as an adult (95% CI=23.9, 29.4).These data emphasize the continued need for vaccinating adolescents aged 11-12 years given that few adults were vaccinated against human papillomavirus.

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines under development, research is needed to assess intention to vaccinate. We conducted a survey ( N = 3,159) with U.S. adults in May 2020 assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions, intentions with a provider recommendation, and sociodemographic and psychosocial variables. Participants had high SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions ( M = 5.23/7-point scale), which increased significantly with a provider recommendation ( M = 5.47). Hierarchical linear regression showed that less education and working in health care were associated with lower intent, and liberal political views, altruism, and COVID-19-related health beliefs were associated with higher intent. This work can inform interventions to increase vaccine uptake, ultimately reducing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.

Objective Recent guidelines indicate adults 27–45 years old can receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine based on a shared-decision with their healthcare provider. With this expansion in recommendations, there is a need to examine the awareness and knowledge of HPV and HPV vaccination among this age group for cancer prevention. Methods HINTS-5 Cycle-2 is a national survey of US adults, and was restricted to a complete case analysis of adults ages 27–45 years (N = 725). Sociodemographic, healthcare, and health information correlates were assessed for the outcomes of HPV awareness, HPV vaccine awareness, knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer, and knowledge of HPV and non-cervical cancers. Survey-weighted logistic regression models were conducted. Results Most respondents were aware of HPV (72.9%) and HPV vaccination (67.1%). Respondents were more likely to be aware of HPV and HPV vaccination if they were female, had a higher level of education, and had previous cancer information seeking behaviors. Although there was widespread knowledge of HPV as a cause of cervical cancer (79.6%), knowledge of HPV as a cause of non-cervical cancers was reported by a minority of respondents (36.1%). College education was positively associated with cervical cancer knowledge (aOR = 4.62; 95%CI: 1.81–11.78); however, no significant correlates were identified for non-cervical HPV associated cancer knowledge. Conclusion While more than half of adults ages 27–45 years are aware of HPV and HPV vaccination, there are opportunities to improve awareness and knowledge, particularly related to non-cervical cancers, as these are critical first steps toward shared decision-making for HPV vaccination in mid-adulthood.

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

This study examined associations between general attitudes toward seeking medical care, attitudes about vaccines/fear of shots, and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake and intentions in college women. Hypothesized associations were framed by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Participants ( N = 330, mean age = 18.9 years, 75% White) completed a one-time survey. The majority (61%; n = 201) had received ≥1 HPV vaccine dose. Hierarchical logistic regression examined relationships between attitudes and vaccine uptake. Pearson correlation coefficients and Kruskal-Wallis tests examined associations between attitudes and vaccine intentions. Results were partially consistent with the TPB. In the final model, perceived benefits, but not fear of shots, were associated with vaccine uptake. Among the unvaccinated, perceived benefits, but not fear of shots, were associated with vaccine intentions. Provider recommendation was the strongest predictor of vaccine uptake. Findings suggest interventions incorporating discussion of perceived benefits and provider recommendation may improve HPV vaccine receipt among college women.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients have distinct medical and psychosocial needs and fertility is a key concern. Early age of onset is a risk factor for hereditary cancer and AYAs are more likely to experience reduced fertility. This has implications for future family building decisions and fertility preservation (FP) and genetic testing/counseling (GT/GC) education. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 39 and health care providers (HCPs) who treat AYA cancer patients were recruited from a single institution. Qualitative interviews explored AYA patients’ and HCPs’ concerns regarding their experiences discussing genetics and FP. RESULTS: The majority of patients (n = 17) were female (59%), and the majority of HCPs (n = 18) were male (67%). Overall, participants had differing perceptions of FP and GT/GC-related information provided during the clinical visit. Patients indicated initiating the conversation about FP and did not recall HCPs discussing GT/GC with them. HCPs indicated patients were often overwhelmed with too much information and comprehension of this discussion is limited. HCPs also felt patients’ emotions/beliefs determined their information-seeking behavior specific to FP and GT/GC. Participants felt educational materials should be developed and delivered in a video format depicting a patient–provider interaction or patient testimonial. CONCLUSION: AYA patients are often overwhelmed by a cancer diagnosis; the complexity/volume of information regarding FP and GT/GC may hinder understanding and decision-making about family building. Educational materials that help patients understand what questions to ask HCPs about FP and GT/GC should be developed to improve knowledge, psychosocial well-being, and future family building decisions.

Despite higher incidence and mortality of breast cancer among younger Black women, genetic testing outcomes remain severely understudied among Blacks. Past research on disclosure of genetic testing results to family members has disproportionately focused on White, educated, high socioeconomic status women. This study addresses this gap in knowledge by assessing (1) to whom Black women disclose genetic test results and (2) if patterns of disclosure vary based on test result (e.g., BRCA1/2 positive, negative, variant of uncertain significance [VUS]). Black women (N=149) with invasive breast cancer diagnosed age ≤50 years from 2009–2012 received free genetic testing through a prospective, population-based study. At 12 months post-testing, women reported with whom they shared their genetic test results. The exact test by binomial distribution was used to examine whether disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to male relatives, and logistic regression analyses tested for differences in disclosure to any female relative, any male relative, parents, siblings, children, and spouses by genetic test result. Most (77%) women disclosed their results to at least one family member. Disclosure to female relatives was significantly greater than disclosure to males (p0.12). Results suggest that in Black families, one benefit of genetic testing – to inform patients and their family with cancer risk information – is not being realized. To increase breast cancer preventive care among high-risk Black women, the oncology care team should prepare Black BRCA1/2 positive women to share genetic test results with family members and, in particular, their daughters.

Black women are overrepresented among premenopausal breast cancer (BC) survivors. These patients warrant genetic testing (GT) followed by risk-reducing behaviors. This study documented patterns and predictors of cancer risk-management behaviors among young black BC survivors after GT. Black women (n = 143) with a diagnosis of BC at the age of 50 years or younger received GT. At 1 year after GT, participants reported receipt of risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, mammogram, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CA125 test, and transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of BC risk management (risk-reducing mastectomy or breast MRI) and ovarian cancer risk management (risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, CA125 test, or transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound). Of the study participants, 16 (11%) were BRCA1/2-positive, 43 (30%) had a variant of uncertain significance, and 84 (59%) were negative. During the 12 months after GT, no women received risk-reducing mastectomy. The majority (93%) received a mammogram, and a smaller proportion received breast MRI (33%), risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (10%), CA125 test (11%), or transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound (34%). Longer time since the BC diagnosis predicted lower likelihood of BC risk management (odds ratio [OR] 0.54). BRCA1/2 carrier status (OR 4.57), greater perceived risk of recurrence (OR 8.03), and more hereditary breast and ovarian cancer knowledge (OR 1.37) predicted greater likelihood of ovarian cancer risk management. Young black BC survivors appropriately received mammograms and ovarian cancer risk management based on their BRCA1/2 test result. However, the low usage of MRI among BRCA1/2 carriers contrasts with national guidelines. Future research should examine barriers to MRI among black BC survivors. Finally, modifiable variables predicting risk management after GT were identified, providing implications for future interventions.

Background Baby boomers are at increased risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and related cancer; therefore, one‐time HCV screening is recommended. Methods To assess prevalence of, and factors associated with providers ordering HCV screening, we examined a retrospective cohort of electronic medical records for patient visits from 01 August 2015 until 31 July 2017 in a large health system. HCV screening ordered was examined by patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, provider specialty, and number of clinical visits, stratified by birth cohort: born ≤1945, 1945‐1965 (baby boomers), 1966‐1985, and ≥1985. Multivariable regression identified factors independently associated with HCV screening ordered among average risk baby boomers. Results A total of 65 114 patients ages ≥18 years were evaluated. Among baby boomers HCV screening test order increased threefold between the two study years (4.0%‐12.9%). Odds of screening test ordered were significantly higher for non‐Hispanic Blacks (multivariable adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.36; 95% CI = 1.19‐1.55), males (aOR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.33‐1.57), and having a clinic visit with a primary care provider alone or with specialty care (aOR = 3.25‐4.16). Medicare (aOR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.80‐0.99), Medicaid (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80‐0.99), and an unknown provider type (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.08‐0.33), were associated with lower odds of screening tests ordered. Conclusions While the proportion of baby boomers with an HCV screening test ordered increased during the study, the rate of screening remains far below national goals. Data from this study indicate that providers are not ordering HCV screening universally for all of their baby boomer patients. Continued efforts to increase HCV screening are needed to reduce the incidence of HCV‐related morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: 50% of liver cancer is caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Baby boomers are at increased risk and are recommended for one-time HCV screening. However

Narrative messages may be superior to didactic messages when providing educational information due to their natural format for information sharing, ability to engage audiences, and engender positive thoughts about the message. Although narrative messages are gaining popularity in health promotion, little guidance exists regarding the development phase. Our team created a psychosocial narrative video intervention grounded in the Health Belief Model to increase breast cancer survivors’ attendance at genetic counseling after treatment. Here we report the use of Learner Verification (LV) during an iterative video development process. Using LV, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with patients and providers, after they viewed the video. Demographic information was analyzed using descriptive statistics, and verbatim interview transcripts were used to conduct a two-phase qualitative content analysis. Patient and provider participants (n = 30) believed the video was attractive, relatable, and informative, and they identified areas for improvement including narrative coherence, changes to text and graphical information, and including more specific information. LV framework elicited audience feedback on the video intervention relevant to theoretical principles of narrative interventions, and highlighted audience preferences. In this study, LV interviews tapped into theoretical constructs of narratives and facilitated the iterative intervention design process.

Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 illness, is an important public health tool to reduce hospitalizations and deaths.This report focuses on intentions and behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccination among United States (U.S.) adults ages 18-45.From February 25-March 24, 2021, we conducted an online survey assessing COVID-19 vaccine intentions and behaviors, health beliefs, vaccine attitudes, and sociodemographic characteristics. Participants were adults aged 18-45, living throughout the U.S. with oversampling in Florida, panelists of a research panel company directly or via verified partners, and able to read, write, and understand English. Associations between COVID-19 vaccination uptake, intentions, and other study variables were examined through multivariable logistic and proportional odds regression analyses.Among participants in the final analytic sample (n = 2722), 18% reported having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Approximately 31% of unvaccinated participants reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the next year, whereas 35% reported strong intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine if it were strongly recommended by a healthcare provider. All COVID-19 vaccination outcomes were associated with male gender, sexual minority status, higher levels of education, and previous influenza vaccination. All vaccination intention outcomes were associated with vaccine attitudes and geographic region. Vaccination status and intentions were differentially associated with multiple additional sociodemographic, attitudinal, and/or healthcare experience variables.Several demographic variables, vaccine attitudes, and healthcare experiences were found to contribute to COVID-19 vaccine receipt and intentions. Targeted efforts are necessary to increase uptake of the vaccine in the U.S.

PURPOSE: Cancer screening uptake differs between groups in ways that cannot be explained by socioeconomic status alone. This study examined associations between material, psychosocial, and behavioral aspects of financial hardship and cancer screening behaviors. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 7,979 people ages 18–75 who were seen in the statewide health system in Indiana. Participants reported SES, feelings about finances, and whether they had to forgo medical care due to cost. This was compared to uptake of mammogram, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and Pap testing in best-fit multivariable logistic regression analyses controlling for demographic and healthcare characteristics. RESULTS: 970 surveys were returned, the majority of respondents were female (54%), non-Hispanic White (75%), and over 50 years old (76%). 15% reported forgoing medical care due to cost; this barrier was higher among Black than White participants (24% vs. 13%; p=0.001). In a best fit regression model for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, those who reported they had to forgo medical care due to cost had lower odds of screening (aOR=0.41; 95%CI=0.22–0.74). Forgoing medical care due to cost was not significantly associated with Pap testing in bivariate analyses. For mammogram, forgoing medical care due to cost was significant in bivariate analyses (OR=0.44; 95% CI=0.22–0.88), but was not significant in the multivariable model. CONCLUSION: Associations between financial hardship and cancer screening suggest the need to reduce barriers to cancer screening even among patients who have access to healthcare. Future research should explore barriers related to both healthcare and personal costs.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did. METHODS: In May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome. RESULTS: Among participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23-2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88-2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49-2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03-1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36-0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24-0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45-2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.

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

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

HPV vaccine is recommended for 27-45 year olds in the U.S. based on a shared clinical decision. This study examined knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of adults 27-45 years old and the association with the likelihood of asking a healthcare provider about the HPV vaccine and the likelihood of getting the HPV vaccine. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults aged 27-45 years between April-May 2020 (n = 691). Primary outcomes were likelihood of asking their provider about the HPV vaccine and likelihood of getting the HPV vaccine. Demographic variables, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were covariates. Adjusted models were estimated for each outcome variable with a Poisson distribution and log function. More than half (55.7%) were likely to ask their provider about the HPV vaccine, but less than half (42.9%) were likely to get the HPV vaccine. Likelihood of asking their provider about the HPV vaccine was significantly associated with perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccine (aOR = 2.45; 95%CI = 1.69-3.57). Likelihood of receiving the vaccine was associated with attitudes (aOR = 1.04; 95%CI = 1.01-1.07), perceived effectiveness against HPV infection (aOR = 4.03; 95%CI = 1.20-13.53), and perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccine (aOR = 4.31; 95%CI = 2.64-7.03). Our findings suggest increasing positive attitudes, perceived effectiveness against infection, and perceived likelihood of benefitting from the vaccination are important factors to address when facilitating a shared clinical decision for HPV vaccination. Understanding factors associated with likelihood of discussing and receiving the HPV vaccine among people aged 27-45 years is important to successfully implement the guidelines for shared clinical decision-making.

Background: Many women see an obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) annually and receive their primary care from an OB/GYN. Understanding OB/GYNs' human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination practices, including knowledge of and barriers to vaccination, is essential to design effective interventions to increase vaccination. This study evaluated OB/GYN knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding vaccinating both younger (18–26 years) and mid-adult (27–45 years) women. Materials and Methods: Data were collected from OB/GYN providers in October 2019 through a nationwide web-based survey. Items included the following: HPV-related vaccination practices, recommendation strength, knowledge (seven items), benefits (four items), and barriers (eight items). Results: The sample (n = 224) was majority were White (69%), men (56%), and practice in suburban clinics (55%). Most (84%) reported they usually or always recommend HPV vaccine to eligible patients, but estimated only about half (51%) of other OB/GYNs did the same. Recommendation strength varied by patient age with 84% strongly recommending it to patients ≤18 years, compared with 79% and 25% strongly recommending to younger and mid-adult patients, respectively (p

One in every six cancers globally can be attributed to an infection. Human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) play a role in the development of over 1.2 million new cancers each year and are responsible for nearly 50% of the infectious cancer burden in the United States. Virus-attributable cancers occur more frequently in those living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The chapter reviews high-risk lifestyle behaviors, including high number of lifetime sexual partners and injection drug use, that increase the risk of acquiring HPV, HBV, HCV, and HIV. It reviews prevention and control strategies for these viruses and associated cancers, including lifestyle behaviors, vaccination, screening, and/or appropriate use of antiretroviral medications.

Background Liver cancer rates are rising and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the primary cause. The CDC recommends a one-time HCV screening for all persons born 1945–1965 (baby boomers). However, 14% of baby boomers have been screened. Few studies have examined primary care providers’ (PCP) perspectives on barriers to HCV screening. This study examines current HCV screening practices, knowledge, barriers, and facilitators to HCV screening recommendation for baby boomers among PCPs. Methods We conducted a mixed methods pilot study of PCPs. Quantitative: We surveyed PCPs from 3 large academic health systems assessing screening practices, knowledge (range:0–9), self-efficacy to identify and treat HCV (range:0–32), and barriers (range:0–10). Qualitative: We conducted interviews assessing patient, provider, and clinic-level barriers to HCV screening for baby boomers in primary care. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with content analysis. Results The study sample consisted of 31 PCPs (22 survey participants and nine interview participants). All PCPs were aware of the birth cohort screening recommendation and survey participants reported high HCV testing recommendation, but qualitative interviews indicated other priorities may supersede recommending HCV testing. Provider knowledge of viral transmission was high, but lower for infection prevalence. While survey participants reported very few barriers to HCV screening in primary care, interview participants provided a more nuanced description of barriers such as lack of time. Conclusions There is a need for provider education on both HCV treatment as well as how to effectively recommend HCV screening for their patients. As HCV screening guidelines continue to expand to a larger segment of the primary care population, it is important to understand ways to improve HCV screening in primary care.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health threat, both in scope and response. With no vaccine available, the public is advised to practice non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including social distancing, mask-wearing, and washing hands. However, little is known about public perceptions of the effectiveness of these measures, and high perceived effectiveness is likely to be critical in order to achieve widespread adoption of NPI.MethodsIn May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among U.S. adults (N = 3,474). The primary outcome was a six-item measure assessing perceived effectiveness of recommended behaviors to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The sample was divided into "higher" and "lower" perceived effectiveness groups. Covariates included demographics, healthcare characteristics, and health beliefs. Variables that were significant at pResultsMean age was 45.5 years and most participants were non-Hispanic White (63%) and female (52.4%). The high perceived effectiveness group was slightly larger than the low perceived effectiveness group (52.7% vs. 47.3%). Almost all health belief variables were significant in the best-fit regression model. COVID-19-related worry (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.02), and perceived threat to physical health (aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.20-1.45) were positively associated with perceived effectiveness while perceived severity of COVID-19 (0.84; 95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and perceived likelihood of infection (0.85; 95% CI = 0.77-0.94) switched directions in the adjusted model and were negatively associated with perceived effectiveness.ConclusionsThis research indicates people generally believe NPI are effective, but there was variability based on health beliefs and there are mixed rates of engagement in these behaviors. Public health efforts should focus on increasing perceived severity and threat of SARS-CoV-2-related disease, while promoting NPI as effective in reducing threat.

Objective Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important approach to patient-centered care in women’s reproductive healthcare. This study explored SDM experiences and perceptions among non-physician healthcare professionals. Methods We completed 20 key-informant interviews with non-physician healthcare professionals (i.e., NP, RN, CNM, doula, pharmacist, chiropractor) living in Indiana (September 2019-May 2020) who provided community-based women’s reproductive healthcare. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an expanded grounded theory framework. Constant comparative analysis identified emergent themes. Results Professionals noted community-based healthcare required contextualized decision-making approaches. Results identified listening, decisional ownership, and engagement strategies that enhanced SDM involvement. Findings suggested outcome-oriented SDM concepts, including decisional ownership and investigative listening to enhance SDM. Providers redefined ‘challenging’ patients as engaged in their healthcare and discussed ways SDM improved healthcare experience beyond one visit. Conclusion Findings offered insight into actionable and practical strategies for enhancing SDM in community-based women’s reproductive healthcare. The findings offer strategies to improve SDM by addressing barriers and facilitators among professionals. This extends SDM beyond the patient-physician dyad and supports broader application of SDM. Practice implications Incorporating professionals’ experiences into SDM concepts can enhance SDM in community-based women’s healthcare practice, offering opportunities to support a culture of SDM across settings.

HPV vaccination rates in Florida are low. To increase rates, the CDC recommends clinics adhere to components of their evidence-based quality improvement program, AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange of information). We explored factors associated with engaging in HPV-specific AFIX-related activities. In 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 770 pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida and assessed vaccination practices, clinic characteristics, and HPV-related knowledge. Data were analyzed in 2017. The primary outcome was whether physicians' clinics engaged in ≥1 AFIX activity. We stratified by physician specialty and developed multivariable models using a backward selection approach. Of the participants in the analytic sample (n = 340), 52% were male, 60% were White of any ethnicity, and 55% were non-Hispanic. Pediatricians and family medicine physicians differed on: years practicing medicine (p 0.001), HPV-related knowledge (p 0.001), and VFC provider status (p 0.001), among others. Only 39% of physicians reported engaging in ≥1 AFIX activity. In the stratified multivariable model for pediatricians, AFIX activity was significantly associated with HPV-related knowledge (aOR = 1.33;95%CI = 1.08-1.63) and provider use of vaccine reminder prompts (aOR = 3.61;95%CI = 1.02-12.77). For family medicine physicians, HPV-related knowledge was significant (aOR = 1.57;95%CI = 1.20-2.05) as was majority race of patient population (non-Hispanic White vs. Other: aOR = 3.02;95%CI = 1.08-8.43), daily patient load (20 vs. 20-24: aOR = 9.05;95%CI = 2.72-30.10), and vaccine administration to male patients (aOR = 2.98;95%CI = 1.11-8.02). Fewer than half of Florida pediatric and family medicine physicians engaged in any AFIX activities. Future interventions to increase AFIX engagement should focus on implementing and evaluating AFIX activities in groups identified as having low engagement in AFIX activities.

Objective Prior studies demonstrating minimal psychological consequences for women receiving genetic counseling/genetic testing (GC/GT) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer rely on predominantly Caucasian women. We conducted a prospective follow-up of a subset of participants from a population-based study of Black breast cancer (BC) survivors receiving GC/GT for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Methods Black women with invasive BC at age ≤ 50 years diagnosed between 2009 and 2012 were recruited through the Florida Cancer Registry. Participants (n = 215, age M = 44.7, SD = 6.2) were offered telephone pre- and post-test GC, a subset completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables. Results There were no baseline differences in cancer-related distress, psychological distress, or quality of life between test result groups. Social well-being improved in women receiving negative results (P = .01), but no other outcomes demonstrated significant changes over time between groups. Conclusions Our study is among the first to demonstrate minimal negative psychosocial outcomes following GC/GT among young Black BC survivors, irrespective of test results.

Purpose We sought to establish which human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine communication approaches by pediatricians were associated with same-day HPV vaccination of 11- to 12-year-olds by evaluating audio recordings of visits. Methods Verilogue, a market research company maintaining a panel of primary care pediatricians, provided audio recordings and transcriptions of well-child visits for 11- to 12-year-old patients from January through June 2013. Seventy-five transcripts from 19 pediatricians were coded for use of presumptive language (i.e., words conveying assumption of vaccine delivery), offer of delay, recommendation strength, and information provision. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between pediatrician communication approaches and agreement to same-day HPV vaccination. Generalized estimating equations accounted for clustering of patients within pediatricians. Results Same-day agreement to HPV vaccination occurred in 29% of encounters. Pediatricians in the sample often provided parents with inconsistent, mixed messages and sometimes offered information about HPV or HPV vaccination that was inaccurate. Pediatricians used presumptive language in only 11 of 75 encounters; when used, presumptive language was associated with higher odds of accepting HPV vaccine (73% vs. 22%; odds ratio = 8.96; 95% confidence interval = 2.32–34.70). Pediatricians offered or recommended delay in most encounters (65%). HPV vaccine acceptance occurred far more often when pediatricians did not mention delaying vaccination (82% vs. 6%; odds ratio = 80.84; 95% confidence interval = 15.72–415.67). Same-day vaccination was not associated with strength of recommendation or pediatrician reference to vaccinating their own children. Conclusions Our findings highlight the need to develop and evaluate physician-focused trainings on using presumptive language for same-day HPV vaccination.

Understanding physician preferences for educational materials to support male HPV vaccination is critical to improving vaccine uptake. Pediatric (Peds) and Family Medicine (FM) physicians in Florida completed a survey from May–August, 2014 assessing current use of male-specific HPV vaccination patient education materials, and preferences for materials to increase HPV vaccination uptake. Peds and FM responses were compared with chi-squared or nonparametric tests. Most participants were FM (53.2%), White (66.6%), non-Hispanic (74.1%), and provided male patients/parents with HPV educational materials (59.1%). More than half (55.5%) provided a CDC factsheet for parents. Peds were more likely to indicate they provide educational materials (p

Understanding physician recommendation practices for HPV vaccination is a crucial step to developing interventions that can increase high quality recommendations and improve vaccination acceptance. Florida physicians (n = 340) completed a survey assessing recommendation strategies, specifically strength, consistency, and presentation. Physicians were also asked to provide suggestions for improving HPV vaccination in Florida. Responses were dichotomized for each outcome: strength (i.e., strongly recommend vs. other), consistently recommend (i.e., always recommend vs. other), and recommendation presentation (i.e., presented in the same manner as mandatory vaccines for adolescents vs. other). Bivariate logistic regression was conducted to determine the association between physician/practice characteristics and each outcome. Variables significant (p

Objective Breast cancer (BC) survivors with a genetic mutation are at higher risk for subsequent cancer; knowing genetic risk status could help survivors make decisions about follow-up screening. Uptake of genetic counseling and testing (GC/GT) to determine BRCA status is low among high risk BC survivors. This study assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a newly developed psychoeducational intervention (PEI) for GC/GT. Methods High risk BC survivors (N = 119) completed a baseline questionnaire and were randomized to the intervention (PEI video/booklet) or control (factsheet) group. Follow-up questionnaires were completed 2 weeks after baseline (T2), and 4 months after T2 (T3). We analyzed recruitment, retention (feasibility), whether the participant viewed study materials (acceptability), intent to get GC/GT (efficacy), and psychosocial outcomes (eg, perceived risk, Impact of Events Scale [IES]). t tests or chi-square tests identified differences between intervention groups at baseline. Mixed models examined main effects of group, time, and group-by-time interactions. Results Groups were similar on demographic characteristics (P ≥ .05). Of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire, 91% followed through to study completion and 92% viewed study materials. A higher percentage of participants in the intervention group moved toward GC/GT (28% vs 8%; P = .027). Mixed models demonstrated significant group-by-time interactions for perceived risk (P = .029), IES (P = .027), and IES avoidance subscale (P = .012). Conclusions The PEI was feasible, acceptable, and efficacious. Women in the intervention group reported greater intentions to pursue GC, greater perceived risk, and decreased avoidance. Future studies should seek to first identify system-level barriers and facilitators before aiming to address individual-level barriers.

IMPACT: This research will improve human health by increasing screening for hepatitis C virus, thereby decreasing morbidity and mortality from hepatitis C-related disease. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The worldwide incidence of liver cancer increased 75% from 1990 to 2015 due, in part, to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Individuals born 1945-1965 (baby boomers) have five times the prevalence of HCV infection compared to other birth cohorts, but fewer than 15% of this cohort have ever been screened. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Effective interventions to increase HCV screening among baby boomers are urgently needed. In partnership with a provider advisory board and a community advisory board, we will develop a multilevel intervention designed to increase HCV screening that will be delivered to both providers and patients in primary care. We will assess whether the intervention is feasible, acceptable, and usable from the perspectives of the target audiences (providers and patients) by conducting Concurrent Think Aloud (CTA) interviews with eight patients and eight providers. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: While the specific content of both intervention components will not be finalized until the completion of the study, we envision that the provider-level intervention will likely include a one-time educational session and monthly performance feedback provided via e-mail reporting each provider’s HCV screening rates. The patient-level intervention may include mailed reminder letters prior to a scheduled clinic visit informing them that HCV screening is recommended and a tablet-based in-clinic computer program to educate, engage, and activate patients to be screened. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The goals of this project are to: 1) develop an acceptable, feasible, and usable multilevel intervention aimed at increasing HCV screening in primary care; and 2) understand the relationship between the intervention components and HCV screening; and 3) reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality.