Cargando…

HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study

BACKGROUND: Despite national recommendations, as of 2009 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates were low with < 30% of adolescent girls fully vaccinated. Research on barriers to vaccination has focused separately on parents, adolescents, or clinicians and not on the decision making process...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hughes, Cayce C, Jones, Amanda L, Feemster, Kristen A, Fiks, Alexander G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-74
_version_ 1782212122440105984
author Hughes, Cayce C
Jones, Amanda L
Feemster, Kristen A
Fiks, Alexander G
author_facet Hughes, Cayce C
Jones, Amanda L
Feemster, Kristen A
Fiks, Alexander G
author_sort Hughes, Cayce C
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite national recommendations, as of 2009 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates were low with < 30% of adolescent girls fully vaccinated. Research on barriers to vaccination has focused separately on parents, adolescents, or clinicians and not on the decision making process among all participants at the point of care. By incorporating three distinct perspectives, we sought to generate hypotheses to inform interventions to increase vaccine receipt. METHODS: Between March and June, 2010, we conducted qualitative interviews with 20 adolescent-mother-clinician triads (60 individual interviews) directly after a preventive visit with the initial HPV vaccine due. Interviews followed a guide based on published HPV literature, involved 9 practices, and continued until saturation of the primary themes was achieved. Purposive sampling balanced adolescent ages and practice type (urban resident teaching versus non-teaching). Using a modified grounded theory approach, we analyzed data with NVivo8 software both within and across triads to generate primary themes. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 20 mothers (12 Black, 9 < high school diploma), 20 adolescents (ten 11-12 years old), and 20 clinicians (16 female). Nine adolescents received the HPV vaccine at the visit, eight of whom were African American. Among the 11 not vaccinated, all either concurrently received or were already up-to-date on Tdap and MCV4. We did not observe systematic patterns of vaccine acceptance or refusal based on adolescent age or years of clinician experience. We identified 3 themes: (1) Parents delayed, rather than refused vaccination, and when they expressed reluctance, clinicians were hesitant to engage them in discussion. (2) Clinicians used one of two strategies to present the HPV vaccine, either presenting it as a routine vaccine with no additional information or presenting it as optional and highlighting risks and benefits. (3) Teens considered themselves passive participants in decision making, even when parents and clinicians reported including them in the process. CONCLUSIONS: Programs to improve HPV vaccine delivery in primary care should focus on promoting effective parent-clinician communication. Research is needed to evaluate strategies to help clinicians engage reluctant parents and passive teens in discussion and measure the impact of distinct clinician decision making approaches on HPV vaccine delivery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3175168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31751682011-09-18 HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study Hughes, Cayce C Jones, Amanda L Feemster, Kristen A Fiks, Alexander G BMC Pediatr Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite national recommendations, as of 2009 human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates were low with < 30% of adolescent girls fully vaccinated. Research on barriers to vaccination has focused separately on parents, adolescents, or clinicians and not on the decision making process among all participants at the point of care. By incorporating three distinct perspectives, we sought to generate hypotheses to inform interventions to increase vaccine receipt. METHODS: Between March and June, 2010, we conducted qualitative interviews with 20 adolescent-mother-clinician triads (60 individual interviews) directly after a preventive visit with the initial HPV vaccine due. Interviews followed a guide based on published HPV literature, involved 9 practices, and continued until saturation of the primary themes was achieved. Purposive sampling balanced adolescent ages and practice type (urban resident teaching versus non-teaching). Using a modified grounded theory approach, we analyzed data with NVivo8 software both within and across triads to generate primary themes. RESULTS: The study population was comprised of 20 mothers (12 Black, 9 < high school diploma), 20 adolescents (ten 11-12 years old), and 20 clinicians (16 female). Nine adolescents received the HPV vaccine at the visit, eight of whom were African American. Among the 11 not vaccinated, all either concurrently received or were already up-to-date on Tdap and MCV4. We did not observe systematic patterns of vaccine acceptance or refusal based on adolescent age or years of clinician experience. We identified 3 themes: (1) Parents delayed, rather than refused vaccination, and when they expressed reluctance, clinicians were hesitant to engage them in discussion. (2) Clinicians used one of two strategies to present the HPV vaccine, either presenting it as a routine vaccine with no additional information or presenting it as optional and highlighting risks and benefits. (3) Teens considered themselves passive participants in decision making, even when parents and clinicians reported including them in the process. CONCLUSIONS: Programs to improve HPV vaccine delivery in primary care should focus on promoting effective parent-clinician communication. Research is needed to evaluate strategies to help clinicians engage reluctant parents and passive teens in discussion and measure the impact of distinct clinician decision making approaches on HPV vaccine delivery. BioMed Central 2011-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3175168/ /pubmed/21878128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-74 Text en Copyright ©2011 Hughes et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hughes, Cayce C
Jones, Amanda L
Feemster, Kristen A
Fiks, Alexander G
HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title_full HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title_fullStr HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title_full_unstemmed HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title_short HPV vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
title_sort hpv vaccine decision making in pediatric primary care: a semi-structured interview study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878128
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-74
work_keys_str_mv AT hughescaycec hpvvaccinedecisionmakinginpediatricprimarycareasemistructuredinterviewstudy
AT jonesamandal hpvvaccinedecisionmakinginpediatricprimarycareasemistructuredinterviewstudy
AT feemsterkristena hpvvaccinedecisionmakinginpediatricprimarycareasemistructuredinterviewstudy
AT fiksalexanderg hpvvaccinedecisionmakinginpediatricprimarycareasemistructuredinterviewstudy