Many studies have examined behavioral and social drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation, but few have examined these drivers longitudinally. We sought to identify the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination initiation using the Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination (BeSD) Framework. Participants were a nationally-representative sample of 1,563 US adults who had not received a COVID-19 vaccine by baseline. Participants took surveys online at baseline (spring 2021) and follow-up (fall 2021). The surveys assessed variables from BeSD Framework domains (i.e., thinking and feeling, social processes, and practical issues), COVID-19 vaccination initiation, and demographics at baseline and follow-up. Between baseline and follow-up, 65% of respondents reported initiating COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccination intent increased from baseline to follow-up (p < .01). Higher vaccine confidence, more positive social norms towards vaccination, and receiving vaccine recommendations at baseline predicted subsequent COVID-19 vaccine initiation (all p < .01). Among factors assessed at follow-up, social responsibility and vaccine requirements had the greatest associations with vaccine initiation (all p < .01). Baseline vaccine confidence, social norms, and vaccination recommendations were associated with subsequent vaccine initiation, all of which could be useful targets for behavioral interventions. Furthermore, interventions that highlight social responsibility to vaccinate or promote vaccination requirements could also be beneficial.

The World Health Organization and global partners sought to identify existing measures of confidence in childhood vaccines, as part of a broader effort to measure the range of behavioural and social drivers of vaccination. We identified 14 confidence measures applicable to childhood vaccination in general, all published between 2010 and 2019. The measures examined 1-5 constructs and included a mean of 12 items. Validation studies commonly examined factor structure, internal consistency reliability, and criterion-related validity. Fewer studies examined convergent and discriminant validity, test-retest reliability, or used cognitive interviewing. Most measures were developed and validated only in high-income countries. These findings highlight the need for a childhood vaccine confidence measure validated for use in diverse global contexts.

Introduction Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. Methods Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. Results Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). Conclusion In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

INTRODUCTION: Focusing on subpopulations that express the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination but are unvaccinated may improve the yield of COVID-19 vaccination efforts. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 789,658 U.S. adults aged 18 years participated in the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module from May 2021 to April 2022. The survey assessed respondents' COVID-19 vaccination status and intent by demographic characteristics (age, urbanicity, educational attainment, region, insurance, income, and race/ethnicity). This study compared composition and within-group estimates of those who responded that they definitely or probably will get vaccinated or are unsure (moveable middle) from the first and last month of data collection. RESULTS: Because vaccination uptake increased over the study period, the moveable middle declined among persons aged 18 years. Adults aged 18-39 years and suburban residents comprised most of the moveable middle in April 2022. Groups with the largest moveable middles in April 2022 included persons with no insurance (10%), those aged 18-29 years (8%), and those with incomes below poverty (8%), followed by non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (7%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native persons (6%), non-Hispanic Black or African American persons (6%), those with below high school education (6%), those with high school education (5%), and those aged 30-39 years (5%). CONCLUSIONS: A sizable percentage of adults open to receiving COVID-19 vaccination remain in several demographic groups. Emphasizing engagement of persons who are unvaccinated in some racial/ethnic groups, aged 18-39 years, without health insurance, or with lower income may reach more persons open to vaccination.

In 2021, the CDC Director declared that racism is a serious threat to public health,* reflecting a growing awareness of racism as a cause of health inequities, health disparities, and disease. Racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19-related hospitalization and death (1,2) illustrate the need to examine root causes, including experiences of discrimination. This report describes the association between reported experiences of discrimination in U.S. health care settings and COVID-19 vaccination status and intent to be vaccinated by race and ethnicity during April 22, 2021-November 26, 2022, based on the analysis of interview data collected from 1,154,347 respondents to the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM). Overall, 3.5% of adults aged ≥18 years reported having worse health care experiences compared with persons of other races and ethnicities (i.e., they experienced discrimination), with significantly higher percentages reported by persons who identified as non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) (10.7%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) (7.2%), non-Hispanic multiple or other race (multiple or other race) (6.7%), Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) (4.5%), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) (3.9%), and non-Hispanic Asian (Asian) (2.8%) than by non-Hispanic White (White) persons (1.6%). Unadjusted differences in prevalence of being unvaccinated against COVID-19 among respondents reporting worse health care experiences than persons of other races and ethnicities compared with those who reported that their health care experiences were the same as those of persons of other races and ethnicities were statistically significant overall (5.3) and for NHOPI (19.2), White (10.5), multiple or other race (5.7), Black (4.6), Asian (4.3), and Hispanic (2.6) adults. Findings were similar for vaccination intent. Eliminating inequitable experiences in health care settings might help reduce some disparities in receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine.

INTRODUCTION: Around one-third of Americans reported they were unwilling to get a COVID-19 vaccine in April 2021. This focus group study aimed to provide insights on the factors contributing to unvaccinated adults' hesitancy or refusal to get vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines. METHOD: Ipsos recruited 59 unvaccinated US adults who were vaccine hesitant (i.e., conflicted about or opposed to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination) using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Trained facilitators led a total of 10 focus groups via video-conference in March and April 2021. Two coders manually coded the data from each group using a coding frame based on the focus group discussion guide. The coding team collaborated in analyzing the data for key themes. RESULTS: Data analysis of transcripts from the focus groups illuminated four main themes associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: lack of trust in experts and institutions; concern about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines; resistance towards prescriptive guidance and restrictions; and, despite personal reluctance or unwillingness to get vaccinated, acceptance of others getting vaccinated. DISCUSSION: Vaccine confidence communication strategies should address individual concerns, describe the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination, and highlight evolving science using factural and neutral presentations of information to foster trust.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and widely available, but many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. This study examined the associations between behavioral and social drivers of vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the U.S. adults and their prevalence by region. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of U.S. adults participated in a cross-sectional telephone survey in August-November 2021; the analysis was conducted in January 2022. Survey questions assessed self-reported COVID-19 vaccine initiation, demographics, and behavioral and social drivers of vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 255,763 respondents, 76% received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine uptake was higher among respondents aged ≥75 years (94%), females (78%), and Asian non-Hispanic people (94%). The drivers of vaccination most strongly associated with uptake included higher anticipated regret from nonvaccination, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by work- or school-related vaccination requirements, social norms, and provider recommendation (all p<0.05). The direction of association with uptake varied by reported level of difficulty in accessing vaccines. The prevalence of all of these behavioral and social drivers of vaccination was highest in the Northeast region and lowest in the Midwest and South. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey found that COVID-19 vaccine uptake was most strongly associated with greater anticipated regret, risk perception, and confidence in vaccine safety and importance, followed by vaccination requirements and social norms. Interventions that leverage these social and behavioral drivers of vaccination have the potential to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and could be considered for other vaccine introductions.

BACKGROUND: New data on COVID-19 may influence the stringency of containment policies, but these potential effect are not understood. We aimed to understand the associations of new COVID-19 cases and deaths with policy stringency globally and regionally. METHODS: We modelled the marginal effects of new COVID-19 cases and deaths on policy stringency (scored 0-100) in 175 countries and territories, adjusting for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and health expenditure (% of GDP), and public expenditure on health. The time periods examined were March to August 2020, September 2020 to February 2021, and March to August 2021. RESULTS: Policy response to new cases and deaths was faster and more stringent early in the COVID-19 pandemic (March to August 2020) compared to subsequent periods. New deaths were more strongly associated with stringent policies than new cases. In an average week, one new death per 100000 people was associated with a stringency increase of 2.1 units in the March to August 2020 period, 1.3 units in the September 2020 to February 2021 period, and 0.7 units in the March to August 2021 period. New deaths in Africa and the Western Pacific were associated with more stringency than in other regions. Higher health expenditure as a percentage of GDP was associated with less stringent policies. Similarly, higher public expenditure on health by governments was mostly associated with less stringency across all three periods. GDP per capita did not have consistent patterns of associations with stringency. CONCLUSIONS: The stringency of COVID-19 policies was more strongly associated with new deaths than new cases. Our findings demonstrate the need for enhanced mortality surveillance to ensure policy alignment during health emergencies. Countries that invest less in health or have a lower public expenditure on health may be inclined to enact more stringent policies. This new empirical understanding of COVID-19 policy drivers can help public health officials anticipate and shape policy responses in future health emergencies.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination vary across the U.S. To inform vaccination outreach efforts, this study explores geographic variation in correlates of COVID-19 nonvaccination among adults. METHODS: Participants were a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults identified through random-digit dialing for the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module. Analyses examined the geographic and temporal landscape of constructs in the Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination Framework among unvaccinated respondents from May 2021 to December 2021 (n=531,798) and sociodemographic and geographic disparities and Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination predictors of COVID-19 nonvaccination from October 2021 to December 2021 (n=187,756). RESULTS: National coverage with at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine was 79.3% by December 2021, with substantial geographic heterogeneity. Regions with the largest proportion of unvaccinated persons who would probably get a COVID-19 vaccine or were unsure resided in the Southeast and Midwest (Health and Human Services Regions 4 and 5). Both regions had similar temporal trends regarding concerns about COVID-19 and confidence in vaccine importance, although the Southeast had especially low confidence in vaccine safety in December 2021, lowest in Florida (5.5%) and highest in North Carolina (18.0%). The strongest Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlate of not receiving a COVID-19 vaccination was lower confidence in COVID-19 vaccine importance (adjusted prevalence ratio=5.19, 95% CI=4.93, 5.47; strongest in the Northeast, Southwest, and Mountain West and weakest in the Southeast and Midwest). Other Behavioral and Social Drivers of Vaccination correlates also varied by region. CONCLUSIONS: Contributors to nonvaccination showed substantial geographic heterogeneity. Strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccination uptake may need to be tailored regionally.

COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the US has marked demographic and geographical disparities, but few explanations exist for them. Our paper aimed to identify behavioral and social drivers that explain these vaccination disparities. Participants were a national sample of 3562 American adults, recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Participants completed an online survey in spring 2021, when COVD-19 vaccination was available for higher-risk groups but not yet available to all US adults. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccination stage (intentions and vaccine uptake), constructs from the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) domains (thinking and feeling, social processes, and direct behavior change), self-reported exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information, and demographic characteristics. Analyses used multiple imputation to address item nonresponse and linear regressions to conduct mediation analyses. Higher COVID-19 vaccination stage was strongly associated with older age, liberal political ideology, and higher income in adjusted analyses (all p < .001). Vaccination stage was more modestly associated with urbanicity, white race, and Hispanic ethnicity (all p < .05). Some key mediators that explained more than one-third of demographic differences in vaccination stage were perceived vaccine effectiveness, social norms, and recommendations from family and friends across most demographic characteristics (all p < .05). Other mediators included safety concerns, trust, altruism, provider recommendation, and information seeking. Access to vaccination, barriers to vaccination, and self-efficacy explained few demographic differences. One of the most reliable explanations for demographic differences in COVID-19 vaccination stage is social processes, including social norms, recommendations, and altruism. Interventions to promote COVID-19 vaccination should address social processes and other domains in the IVM.

INTRODUCTION: Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. METHODS: Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. RESULTS: Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). CONCLUSION: In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: US health departments routinely conduct in-person quality improvement (QI) coaching to strengthen primary care clinics' vaccine delivery systems, but this intervention achieves only small, inconsistent improvements in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Thus, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of combining QI coaching with remote provider communication training to improve impact. METHODS: With health departments in 3 states, we conducted a pragmatic 4-arm cluster randomized clinical trial with 267 primary care clinics (76% pediatrics). Clinics received in-person QI coaching, remote provider communication training, both interventions combined, or control. Using data from states' immunization information systems, we assessed HPV vaccination among 176189 patients, ages 11 to 17, who were unvaccinated at baseline. Our primary outcome was the proportion of those, ages 11 to 12, who had initiated HPV vaccination at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: HPV vaccine initiation was 1.5% points higher in the QI coaching arm and 3.8% points higher in the combined intervention arm than in the control arm, among patients ages 11 to 12, at 12-month follow-up (both P < .001). Improvements persisted at 18-month follow-up. The combined intervention also achieved improvements for other age groups (ages 13-17) and vaccination outcomes (series completion). Remote communication training alone did not outperform the control on any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Combining QI coaching with remote provider communication training yielded more consistent improvements in HPV vaccination uptake than QI coaching alone. Health departments and other organizations that seek to support HPV vaccine delivery may benefit from a higher intensity, multilevel intervention approach.

BACKGROUND: The 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic disrupted childhood immunization in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. After the epidemic, the Government of Sierra Leone prioritized community engagement to increase vaccination confidence and uptake. To support these efforts, we examined potential drivers of vaccination confidence and uptake in Sierra Leone. METHODS: We conducted a population-based household survey with primary caregivers of children in a birth cohort of 12 to 23 months in four districts with low vaccination coverage in Sierra Leone in 2019. Modified Poisson regression modeling with robust variance estimation was used to examine if perceived community engagement in planning the immunization program in the community was associated with vaccination confidence and having a fully vaccinated child. RESULTS: The sample comprised 621 age-eligible children and their caregivers (91% response rate). Half of the caregivers (52%) reported that it usually takes too long to get to the vaccination site, and 36% perceived that health workers expect money for vaccination services that are supposed to be given at no charge. When mothers were the decision-makers of the children's vaccination, 80% of the children were fully vaccinated versus 69% when fathers were the decision-makers and 56% when other relatives were the decision-makers. Caregivers with high confidence in vaccination were more likely to have fully vaccinated children compared to caregivers with low confidence (78% versus 53%). For example, caregivers who thought vaccines are 'very much' safe were more likely to have fully vaccinated children than those who thought vaccines are 'somewhat' safe (76% versus 48%). Overall, 53% of caregivers perceived high level of community engagement, 41% perceived medium level of engagement, and 6% perceived low level of engagement. Perceiving high community engagement was associated with expressing high vaccination confidence (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR)=2.60; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.67-4.04) and having a fully vaccinated child (aPR=1.67; 95% CI=1.18-2.38). CONCLUSIONS: In these four low coverage districts in Sierra Leone, the perceived level of community engagement was strongly associated with vaccination confidence among caregivers and vaccination uptake among children. We have provided exploratory cross-sectional evidence to inform future longitudinal assessments to further investigate the potential causal effect of community engagement on vaccination confidence and uptake.

From 2016 to 2019, the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded three Special Interest Projects focused on developing and testing multilevel HPV vaccination communication interventions. In this commentary, we highlight lessons learned from the funded projects, including the importance of engaging community members in the early stages of the research process, the challenges of evaluating multilevel interventions, and the need to consider stakeholder implementation preferences.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations have higher prevalences of health conditions associated with severe COVID-19 illness compared with non-LGBT populations (1). The potential for low vaccine confidence and coverage among LGBT populations is of concern because these persons historically experience challenges accessing, trusting, and receiving health care services (2). Data on COVID-19 vaccination among LGBT persons are limited, in part because of the lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity at the national and state levels. During August 29-October 30, 2021, data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) were analyzed to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among LGBT adults aged 18 years. By sexual orientation, gay or lesbian adults reported higher vaccination coverage overall (85.4%) than did heterosexual adults (76.3%). By race/ethnicity, adult gay or lesbian non-Hispanic White men (94.1%) and women (88.5%), and Hispanic men (82.5%) reported higher vaccination coverage than that reported by non-Hispanic White heterosexual men (74.2%) and women (78. 6%). Among non-Hispanic Black adults, vaccination coverage was lower among gay or lesbian women (57.9%) and bisexual women (62.1%) than among heterosexual women (75.6%). Vaccination coverage was lowest among non-Hispanic Black LGBT persons across all categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. Among gay or lesbian adults and bisexual adults, vaccination coverage was lower among women (80.5% and 74.2%, respectively) than among men (88.9% and 81.7%, respectively). By gender identity, similar percentages of adults who identified as transgender or nonbinary and those who did not identify as transgender or nonbinary were vaccinated. Gay or lesbian adults and bisexual adults were more confident than were heterosexual adults in COVID-19 vaccine safety and protection; transgender or nonbinary adults were more confident in COVID-19 vaccine protection, but not safety, than were adults who did not identify as transgender or nonbinary. To prevent serious illness and death, it is important that all persons in the United States, including those in the LGBT community, stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

Vaccination is critical to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, and health care providers play an important role in achieving high vaccination coverage (1). To examine the prevalence of report of a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination and its association with COVID-19 vaccination coverage and attitudes, CDC analyzed data among adults aged ≥18 years from the National Immunization Survey-Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM), a nationally representative cellular telephone survey. Prevalence of report of a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination among adults increased from 34.6%, during April 22-May 29, to 40.5%, during August 29-September 25, 2021. Adults who reported a provider recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination were more likely to have received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (77.6%) than were those who did not receive a recommendation (61.9%) (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.12). Report of a provider recommendation was associated with concern about COVID-19 (aPR = 1.31), belief that COVID-19 vaccines are important to protect oneself (aPR = 1.15), belief that COVID-19 vaccination was very or completely safe (aPR = 1.17), and perception that many or all of their family and friends had received COVID-19 vaccination (aPR = 1.19). Empowering health care providers to recommend vaccination to their patients could help reinforce confidence in, and increase coverage with, COVID-19 vaccines, particularly among groups known to have lower COVID-19 vaccination coverage, including younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, and rural residents.

The US's 64 CDC-funded immunization programs are at the forefront of efforts to improve the quality of adolescent vaccination services. We sought to understand immunization program managers' perspectives on partnering with healthcare systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake. Managers of 44 state and local immunization programs completed our online survey in 2019. Immunization managers strongly endorsed the importance of partnering with systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake (mean = 3.8/4.0), and most wanted to do so in the next year (mean = 3.5). Immunization managers reported that common barriers included difficulty contacting systems' leadership (57%), differing organizational cultures (52%), and time (52%). Many perceived systems as not prioritizing HPV vaccination (77%). Immunization managers expressed strong interest in participating in a training on partnering with systems (mean = 3.5). Overall, immunization managers are highly interested in partnering with systems to improve HPV vaccine uptake. Training and other support are needed to expand programs' capacity for such partnerships. | PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYImmunization managers are interested in partnering with healthcare systems to improve HPV vaccination. However, support may be needed to facilitate partnerships between immunization programs and healthcare systems. | eng

The potential of mental health professionals and agencies to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination has received inadequate attention. Mental health professionals and teams are trained to use empathy, reflective listening, and cooperative goal setting to help patients address challenges. These professionals actively support patients’ well-being, including their adoption of health behaviors such as receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Around 18% of US adults see a mental health professional in a 12-month period, providing an important opportunity.1 Such care may be particularly important in the context of greater mental health problems during the pandemic.2 We briefly review what little is known about mental health and vaccination behavior and then address 3 areas for intervention by mental health professionals, based on the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM).3 The model identifies 3 main influences on vaccination behavior: what people think and feel, their social experiences, and opportunities for direct behavior change. This descriptive model of health behavior is in use in an adapted form by the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Many US health departments (HDs) conduct in-person quality improvement (QI) coaching to help primary care clinics improve their HPV vaccine delivery systems and communication. Some HDs additionally conduct remote communication training to help vaccine prescribers recommend HPV vaccination more effectively. Our aim was to compare QI coaching and communication training on key implementation outcomes. In a cluster randomized trial, we offered 855 primary care clinics: 1) QI coaching; 2) communication training; or 3) both interventions combined. In each trial arm, we assessed adoption (proportion of clinics receiving the intervention), contacts per clinic (mean number of contacts needed for one clinic to adopt intervention), reach (median number of participants per clinic), and delivery cost (mean cost per clinic) from the HD perspective. More clinics adopted QI coaching than communication training or the combined intervention (63% vs 16% and 12%, both p < .05). QI coaching required fewer contacts per clinic than communication training or the combined intervention (mean = 4.7 vs 29.0 and 40.4, both p < .05). Communication training and the combined intervention reached more total staff per clinic than QI coaching (median= 5 and 5 vs 2, both p < .05), including more prescribers (2 and 2 vs 0, both p < .05). QI coaching cost $439 per adopting clinic on average, including follow up ($129/clinic), preparation ($73/clinic), and travel ($69/clinic). Communication training cost $1,287 per adopting clinic, with most cost incurred from recruitment ($653/clinic). QI coaching was lower cost and had higher adoption, but communication training achieved higher reach, including to influential vaccine prescribers. | Our cluster randomized trial compared two interventions that health departments commonly use to increase HPV vaccination coverage: quality improvement (QI) coaching and physician communication training. We found that QI coaching cost less and was more often adopted by primary care clinics, but communication training reached more staff members per clinic, including vaccine prescribers. Findings provide health departments with data needed to weigh the implementation strengths and challenges of QI coaching and physician communication training for increasing HPV vaccination coverage. | eng

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Quality improvement (QI) coaching improves human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but effects of coaching have been small, and little is known about how and when QI coaching works. To assess implementation outcomes and explore factors that might explain variation in outcomes, we conducted a process evaluation of a QI coaching intervention for HPV vaccination. INTERVENTION APPROACH: QI coaches received tools and training to support 4 core coaching competencies: 1) expertise in using clinic-level adolescent vaccination data to drive change, 2) knowledge of the evidence base to support change in HPV vaccination practice, 3) familiarity with improvement strategies and action planning, and 4) skill in building relationships. EVALUATION METHODS: Our mixed methods evaluation involved collecting quantitative data through effort-tracking logs and gathering qualitative data through in-depth interviews with QI coaches (N = 11) who worked with 89 clinics in 3 US states. Data were collected on implementation outcomes and on contextual factors that might explain variations in those outcomes. Implementation outcomes included adoption by clinics, reach to providers and staff (ie, participation in the coaching visit), and implementation fidelity. RESULTS: States achieved either high adoption or high reach, but not both. For example, state A had high adoption with 94% of clinics accepting a coaching visit, but low reach with a median of 1 participant per clinic. In contrast, state C had lower adoption (29%, P < .01) than state A but higher reach (median of 4 participants per clinic, P < .01). Generally, states had high coaching protocol fidelity with the exception of advising on strategies and action planning. QI coaches described factors that might explain these variations, including strength of relationships with clinic staff and whether they recruited clinics directly or through large clinic networks. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Our findings have implications for the design of future QI coaching initiatives, including how coaches recruit clinics to ensure full clinic engagement, refinements to coaching visits, and how QI coaches can effectively engage with clinic networks. Findings could inform future QI coaching interventions to strengthen their impact on public health.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been available in the United States for a decade, yet vaccination coverage remains modest. A recent review identified numerous interventions for increasing HPV vaccination,1 but effects were small and evidence was often insufficient to identify best practices. The National HPV Vaccination Roundtable sponsored a 1-day national meeting in 2016 on best and promising practices in HPV vaccine delivery, in part to identify important research gaps. | | Meeting attendees were HPV vaccine delivery experts including scientists, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Approximately 100 people attended in-person and approximately 400 additional people streamed the meeting online (livestream.com/ACS/events/5892004). Throughout the meeting, the meeting facilitators encouraged attendees to identify gaps that future research should address and write them on display boards (or send via e-mail or Twitter). Facilitators did not provide attendees with a predefined list of gaps. Attendees identified a total of 33 gaps (Table). In-person attendees voted for up to 5 gaps they believed were top priorities. We categorized the gaps into themes. The 12 gaps that received the most votes generally fit into these themes: 1) social media and vaccine confidence, 2) health care provider interventions, or 3) system-level approaches. Two gaps in the top 12 that did not fit these themes were determining what interventions work in rural areas (gap 7) and the impact of survivor testimonials (gap 9).

An average of 25,900 cases of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers are newly diagnosed in the United States each year.1,2 An estimated 14 million people are newly infected with HPV each year, and nearly half of these infections occur in people aged 14–25 years.3 Although most infections resolve over time, persistent infection with oncogenic HPV types is associated with a variety of cancers. Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV, along with 90% of anal, 69% of vaginal, 60% of oropharyngeal, 51% of vulvar, and 40% of penile cancers.1 Furthermore, 87% of anal, 76% of cervical, 60% of oropharyngeal, 55% of vaginal, 44% of vulva, and 29% of penile cancers are caused by oncogenic HPV type 16 or 18.4 Of the 35,000 HPV cancers reported in 2009 in the United States, 39% occurred in males.1 | Three HPV vaccines are currently available in the United States. One is a bivalent vaccine (designated as HPV2) designed to protect against HPV types 16 and 18, which are responsible for the most HPV-associated cancers. One is a quadrivalent vaccine (HPV4), which protects against HPV types 16 and 18 and two additional types, 6 and 11, that are the most common causes of genital warts. One is a nonavalent vaccine (HPV9) that protects against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, and offers additional protection against five oncogenic HPV types, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. To prevent cancers associated with HPV infections, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends HPV immunization for all children aged 11 or 12 years with the licensed three-doses series. The ACIP has recommended routine HPV immunization for girls since 2006 and for boys since 2011.2

PURPOSE: Mother-daughter communication about sex is associated with healthier behavior during adolescence. We sought to characterize mothers' communication with their daughters about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and the potential for these discussions to provide an opportunity for talking about sexual health. METHODS: During December 2009, we conducted an online survey with a nationally representative sample of US mothers of girls aged 11 to 14 years (n = 900; response rate = 66%). We used 3 complimentary approaches to assess HPV vaccine as an opportunity for mother-daughter communication about sex. Estimates are weighted. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of mothers reported talking with their daughters about HPV vaccine, of whom 41% said that doing so led to a conversation about sex. Mothers who had talked with their daughters about HPV vaccine were more likely than those who had not to have also talked with their daughters about sex (92% vs. 74%, OR = 3.25, CI = 1.57-6.68, P < 0.05), in multivariate analyses. Among mothers who talked about sex when they talked about HPV vaccine, many felt that HPV vaccine provided a good reason to do so (64%) or that it made it easier to start a conversation (33%). CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccine discussions provide a cue to mother-daughter communication about sex that is as important as some more widely recognized cues. Discussions about HPV vaccine are an acceptable opportunity for mothers to talk with their daughters at an age when communication about sex is most influential. It may be possible for parents to capitalize on HPV vaccine discussions already happening in many families to promote sexual health.

BACKGROUND: HPV typing using formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cervical tissue is used to evaluate HPV vaccine impact, but DNA yield and quality in FFPE specimens can negatively affect test results. This study aimed to evaluate 2 commercial assays for HPV detection and typing using FFPE cervical specimens. METHODS: Four large North Carolina pathology laboratories provided FFPE specimens from 299 women ages18 and older diagnosed with cervical disease from 2001 to 2006. For each woman, one diagnostic block was selected and unstained serial sections were prepared for DNA typing. Extracts from samples with residual lesion were used to detect and type HPV using parallel and serial testing algorithms with the Linear Array and LiPA HPV genotyping assays. FINDINGS: LA and LiPA concordance was 0.61 for detecting any high-risk (HR) and 0.20 for detecting any low-risk (LR) types, with significant differences in marginal proportions for HPV16, 51, 52, and any HR types. Discordant results were most often LiPA-positive, LA-negative. The parallel algorithm yielded the highest prevalence of any HPV type (95.7%). HR type prevalence was similar using parallel (93.1%) and serial (92.1%) approaches. HPV16, 33, and 52 prevalence was slightly lower using the serial algorithm, but the median number of HR types per woman (1) did not differ by algorithm. Using the serial algorithm, HPV DNA was detected in >85% of invasive and >95% of pre-invasive lesions. The most common type was HPV16, followed by 52, 18, 31, 33, and 35; HPV16/18 was detected in 56.5% of specimens. Multiple HPV types were more common in lower grade lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an efficient algorithm for testing and reporting results of two commercial assays for HPV detection and typing in FFPE specimens, and describe HPV type distribution in pre-invasive and invasive cervical lesions in a state-based sample prior to HPV vaccine introduction.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies have been conducted to understand what factors are associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine acceptability and completion of the 3-dose vaccination series, but few have examined whether people understand the survey items used to assess these relationships. Through a multisite collaborative effort, we developed and cognitively tested survey items that represent constructs known to affect vaccine acceptability and completion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigators from 7 research centers in the United States used cognitive interviewing techniques and in-person and telephone interviews to test 21 items. Four rounds of testing, revising, and retesting were conducted among racially and ethnically diverse parents (n = 62) of girls between the ages of 9 and 17 years. RESULTS: The final survey contained 20 items on attitudes and beliefs relevant to HPV vaccine. Some parents misinterpreted statements about hypothetical vaccine harms as statements of fact. Others were unwilling to answer items about perceived disease likelihood and perceived vaccine effectiveness, because they said the items seemed to have a "right" answer that they did not know. On the basis of these and other findings from cognitive testing, we revised the wording of 14 questions to improve clarity and comprehension. We also revised instructions, response options, and item order. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive testing of HPV vaccine survey items revealed important differences between intended and ascribed item meaning by participants. Use of the tested survey questions presented here may increase measurement validity and researchers' ability to compare findings across studies and populations. Additional testing using quantitative methods can help to further validate these items.

We characterized parental attitudes regarding school HPV vaccination requirements for adolescent girls. Study participants were 889 parents of 10-18 year-old girls in areas of North Carolina with elevated cervical cancer incidence. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by logistic regression. Approximately half (47%) of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV immunization for school attendance "are a good idea" when opt-out provisions were not mentioned. Far more agreed that "these laws are okay only if parents can opt out if they want to" (84%). Predictors of supporting requirements included believing HPV vaccine is highly effective against cervical cancer (OR=2.5, 95%CI:1.7-5.0) or is more beneficial if provided at an earlier age (OR=16.1, 95%CI:8.4-30.9). Parents were less likely to agree with vaccine requirements being a good idea if they expressed concerns related to HPV vaccine safety (OR=0.3, 95%CI:0.1-0.5), its recent introduction (OR=0.3,95%CI:0.2-0.6), or its potential to increase their daughters' sexual activity (OR=0.4,95%CI:0.2-0.6). Parental acceptance of school requirements appears to depend on perceived HPV vaccine safety and efficacy, understanding of the optimal age for vaccine administration, and inclusion of opt-out provisions.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization requirements for school entry could increase HPV vaccine uptake but are controversial. This study assessed parents' attitudes about HPV immunization requirements. METHODS: During October 2007-June 2008, we conducted telephone surveys with 484 parents of girls attending middle/high schools serving communities in Los Angeles County with elevated cervical cancer rates. RESULTS: Parents were mostly Hispanic (81%) or African-American (15%); 71% responded in Spanish. Many parents did not know if HPV vaccine works well (42%) or is unsafe (41%). Overall, 59% of parents agreed that laws requiring HPV vaccination for school attendance "are a good idea." In multivariable analysis, African-Americans and Hispanics responding in English were less likely than Hispanics responding in Spanish to agree (aOR 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8; aOR 0.1, CI 0.1-0.3, respectively). Parents were less likely to agree with these laws if they did not believe the vaccine works well (aOR 0.2, CI 0.1-0.5) but more likely to agree if they believed the vaccine is not "too new for laws like these" (aOR 4.5, CI 2.6-8.0). Agreement with laws increased to 92% when including agreement that "these laws are okay only if parents can opt out." CONCLUSIONS: In this at-risk community, over half of parents agreed with HPV immunization requirements generally, and the vast majority agreed when including opt-out provisions. Impact: Support for HPV vaccine requirements may depend on race/ethnicity and inclusion of opt-out provisions. Information about vaccine efficacy and safety may increase support and reduce uncertainty about HPV vaccine in high risk populations.

HPV vaccination rates among adolescents in the United States lag behind some other developed countries, many of which routinely offer the vaccine in schools. We sought to assess mothers' willingness to have their adolescent daughters receive HPV vaccine at school. A national sample of mothers of adolescent females ages 11-14 completed our internet survey (response rate=66%). The final sample (n=496) excluded mothers who did not intend to have their daughters receive HPV vaccine in the next year. Overall, 67% of mothers who intended to vaccinate their daughters or had vaccinated their daughters reported being willing to have their daughters receive HPV vaccine at school. Mothers were more willing to allow their daughters to receive HPV vaccine in schools if they had not yet initiated the vaccine series for their daughters or resided in the Midwest or West (all p<.05). The two concerns about voluntary school-based provision of HPV vaccine that mothers most frequently cited were that their daughters' doctors should keep track of her shots (64%) and that they wished to be present when their daughters were vaccinated (40%). Our study suggests that most mothers who support adolescent vaccination for HPV find school-based HPV vaccination an acceptable option. Ensuring communication of immunization records with doctors and allowing parents to be present during immunization may increase parental support.

PURPOSE: Parent-child conversations about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may provide parents with the opportunity to talk with their daughters about sexual health. We sought to characterize mothers' communication with their adolescent daughters about HPV vaccine. METHODS: We surveyed 609 mothers of girls aged between 11 and 20 years living in North Carolina in Fall 2008. We used logistic regression to identify the correlates of mother-daughter communication. RESULTS: Most mothers (81%) reported having discussed HPV vaccine with their daughters. For almost half of these families (47%), discussion of HPV vaccine led to a conversation about sex. This was more common among mothers who believed that their daughters may be sexually active (odds ratio [OR]: 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.83), had greater knowledge of HPV vaccine (OR: 2.46; 95% CI: 1.07-5.64), lived in urban areas (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.21-2.54), or reported being born-again Christians (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.17-2.58). Most mothers who talked with their daughters about HPV vaccine reported having discussed the reasons for and against getting vaccinated (86%). Mothers most commonly reported having discussed the potential HPV vaccine benefits, usually protection against cervical cancer (56%), and less frequently reported having discussed the perceived disadvantages of HPV vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccine conversations may provide opportunities for sexual health promotion and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake is low among adolescent girls in the United States. We sought to identify longitudinal predictors of HPV vaccine initiation in populations at elevated risk for cervical cancer. METHODS: We interviewed a population-based sample of parents of 10- to 18-year-old girls in areas of North Carolina with elevated cervical cancer rates. Baseline interviews occurred in summer 2007 and follow-up interviews in fall 2008. Measures included health belief model constructs. RESULTS: Parents reported that 27% (149/567) of their daughters had initiated HPV vaccine between baseline and follow-up. Of parents who at baseline intended to get their daughters the vaccine in the next year, only 38% (126/348) had done so by follow-up. Of parents of daughters who remained unvaccinated at follow-up but had seen a doctor since baseline, only 37% (122/388) received an HPV vaccine recommendation. Rates of HPV vaccine initiation were higher among parents who at baseline perceived lower barriers to getting HPV vaccine, anticipated greater regret if their daughters got HPV because they were unvaccinated, did not report "needing more information" as the main reason they had not already vaccinated, intended to get their daughters the vaccine, or were not born-again Christians. CONCLUSIONS: Missed opportunities to increase HPV vaccine uptake included unrealized parent intentions and absent doctor recommendations. While several health belief model constructs identified in early acceptability studies (e.g., perceived risk, perceived vaccine effectiveness) were not longitudinally associated with HPV vaccine initiation, our findings suggest correlates of uptake (e.g., anticipated regret) that offer novel opportunities for intervention.