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

Background: Pertussis, or “whooping cough,” is an acute, contagious pulmonary disease that, despite being vaccine-preventable, has become an increasingly widespread problem in the United States. As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated recommendations stating clinicians should give a Tdap dose during every pregnancy, preferably at 27–36 weeks. Despite this recommendation, reported Tdap vaccine receipt rates during pregnancy vary from 16–61%, and previous studies have shown that clinician recommendation and vaccine administration are strongly associated with vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Methods: Our aim was to inform new strategies to increase uptake of the Tdap vaccine among pregnant women and, ultimately, reduce pertussis-related morbidity and mortality in infants. We conducted interviews with a sample of 24 ob-gyns. We subsequently performed grounded theory analyses of transcripts using deductive and inductive coding strategies followed by intercoder reliability assessment. Results: All physicians interviewed were familiar with the most recent recommendation of giving the Tdap vaccine during the third trimester of every pregnancy, and the majority of physicians stated that they felt that the vaccine was important and effective due to the transfer of pertussis antibodies from the mother to the fetus. Most physicians indicated that they recommended the vaccine to patients during pregnancy, but not all reported administering it on site because it was not stocked at their practice. Implementation challenges for physicians included insurance reimbursement and other challenges (i.e., patient refusal). Tdap vaccination during pregnancy was a lower clinical priority for some physicians. Physicians recognized the benefits associated with Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. Conclusions: Findings indicate while most ob-gyns recognize the benefits of Tdap and recommend vaccination during pregnancy, barriers such as insurance reimbursement and financial concerns for the practice can outweigh the perceived benefits. This resulted in some ob-gyns reporting choosing not to stock and administer the vaccine in their practice. Recommendations to address these concerns include 1) structural support for Tdap vaccine administration in ob-gyns practices; 2) Continuing medical education-equivalent educational interventions that address management techniques, vaccine coding, and other relevant information; and 3) interventions to assist physicians in communicating the importance of Tdap vaccination during pregnancy.

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

OBJECTIVE: We examined Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) dissemination practices and parental use and perceptions. METHODS: We conducted a national online panel survey of 2603 US parents of children aged <7. Primary outcomes included reported VIS receipt, delivery timing, reading experiences, and perceived utility. RESULTS: Most parents received a VIS (77.2%; [95% CI: 74.5-79.7%]), 59.7% [56.6-62.7%] before vaccination but 14.5% [12.5-16.8%] reported receiving it after their child's immunization; 15.1% [13.0-17.6%] were unsure of receipt status or timing; another 10.7% [9.0-12.6%] reported non-receipt of a VIS. Less than half who received a VIS before vaccination completed it before vaccination (46.2% [42.4, 50.0%]), but most who read at least some found the information useful (95.7% [93.8-97.0%]). Parents who delayed or refused at least one recommended non-influenza vaccine reported fewer opportunities to ask providers VIS questions. CONCLUSIONS: Most parents report receiving VIS before vaccination as per federal guidelines. Continued effort is needed to enhance VIS distribution practice and parent-provider VIS content communication.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the current status of parents' vaccine decision making is crucial to inform public policy. We sought to assess changes in vaccine decisions among parents of young children. METHODS: We conducted a web-based national poll of parents of children <7years in 2012 and 2014. Participants reported vaccine decisions for their youngest child. We calculated survey-weighted population estimates of overall immunizations decisions, and delay/refusal rates for specific vaccines. RESULTS: In 2012, 89.2% (95% CI, 87.3-90.8%) reported accepting or planning to accept all recommended non-influenza childhood vaccines, 5.5% (4.5-6.6%) reported intentionally delaying one or more, and 5.4% (4.1-6.9%) reported refusing one or more vaccines. In 2014, the acceptance, delay, and refusal rates were 90.8% (89.3-92.1%), 5.6% (4.6-6.9%), and 3.6% (2.8-4.5%), respectively. Between 2012 and 2014, intentional vaccine refusal decreased slightly among parents of older children (2-6years) but not younger children (0-1years). The proportion of parents working to catch up on all vaccines increased while those refusing some but not all vaccines decreased. The South experienced a significant increase in estimated acceptance (90.1-94.1%) and a significant decrease in intentional ongoing refusal (5.0-2.1%). Vaccine delay increased in the Northeast (3.2-8.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, acceptance and ongoing intentional delay of recommended non-influenza childhood vaccines were stable. These findings suggest that more effort is warranted to counter persistent vaccine hesitancy, particularly at the local level. Longitudinal monitoring of immunization attitudes is also warranted to evaluate temporal shifts over time and geographically.

Despite the rapid growth of retail clinics (RCs), literature is limited in terms of how these facilities offer preventive services, particularly vaccination services. The purpose of this study was to obtain an in-depth understanding of the RC business model pertaining to vaccine offerings, profitability, and decision making. From March to June 2009, we conducted 15 interviews with key individuals from three types of organizations: 12 representatives of RC corporations, 2 representatives of retail hosts (i.e., stores in which the RCs are located), and 1 representative of an industry association. We analyzed interview transcripts qualitatively. Our results indicate that consumer demand and profitability were the main drivers in offering vaccinations. RCs in this sample primarily offered vaccinations to adults and adolescents, and they were not well integrated with local public health and immunization registries. Our findings demonstrate the potential for stronger linkages with public health in these settings. The findings also may help inform future research to increase patient access to vaccination services at RCs.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities in influenza vaccination among adults are longstanding, and research suggests they result from multiple factors. Influenza vaccine-seeking behavior may be an important aspect to consider when evaluating disparities in vaccination coverage. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences between blacks and whites in influenza vaccine-seeking behavior among adults 65 years and older. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a national sample of 3138 adults 65 years and older collected through the adult module of the 2007 National Immunization Survey, a random digit dialing telephone survey, which included an oversample of non-Hispanic blacks. Analysis included influenza vaccination rate, location of vaccination, and whether vaccinated individuals specifically went to the location to receive the vaccine (vaccine seekers) by race. The relationship between attitudes about influenza vaccination and vaccine-seeking behavior by race was also examined. RESULTS: White adults 65 years and older were significantly more likely to receive influenza vaccine than blacks, during the 2006-2007 influenza season (68% +/- 4% vs 54% +/- 3%, respectively), and a significantly higher proportion of vaccinated whites reported seeking out the vaccine than vaccinated blacks (66% +/- 4% vs 47% +/- 4%, respectively). Blacks were less likely to be vaccine seekers, regardless of education or poverty levels. Among persons vaccinated in a doctor's office, 52% of whites specifically went there to get vaccinated, compared with 37% of blacks. Among persons who believe the vaccine is very effective, 66% +/- 5% of whites versus 50% +/- 6% of blacks were vaccine seekers. CONCLUSIONS: This study points to the importance of improving our understanding of what factors, in addition to beliefs about vaccination, lead to vaccine seeking and reinforces the need for systematically offering vaccine.