More than 1 of 10 parents of young children currently use an alternative vaccination schedule. In addition, a large proportion of parents currently following the recommended schedule seem to be "at risk" for switching to an alternative schedule.

BackgroundWith several new vaccine recommendations specifically targeting adolescents, improving adolescent vaccination rates has become a major health priority. Vaccination attitudes are an important, modifiable target for new interventions. Prior research has examined primarily the attitudes and beliefs of adolescents, parents or healthcare providers separately without exploring the decision-making dynamic among these stakeholders. We sought to identify potentially modifiable barriers in the vaccine decision process among adolescents, parents and healthcare providers that could be addressed through interventions implemented within the adolescent’s medical home.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study of adolescents, their parents and healthcare providers, recruited from four primary care practices in Michigan. For each practice, three separate focus group discussions (adolescents, parents and healthcare providers, for a total of 12 focus groups) were conducted to explore vaccination attitudes, possible interventions to improve vaccine uptake and access to and use of technology for vaccination interventions. Themes that emerged from the focus group discussions were categorized using an inductive, iterative process, and analysis focused on highlighting similarities and differences among the three perspectives.ResultsParticipants included 32 adolescents, 33 parents and 28 providers. The majority of parents and adolescents were female. Lack of knowledge about recommended adolescent vaccinations was universally recognized among the three groups and was perceived to be the underlying driver of low immunization rates. Notably, each group did not appear to fully appreciate the challenges faced by the other stakeholders with respect to adolescent vaccination. Adolescents were seen as having a greater role in the vaccine decision-making dynamic than previously suggested. Provider-based interventions such as educational tools and reminder-recall notices were identified as important components of any immunization program. Overall, there was high receptivity among all stakeholders toward integrating technology such as email and Internet into new vaccination interventions.ConclusionsWe identified potentially modifiable attitudinal barriers to adolescent vaccination among the three key stakeholders. However, there were notable differences in attitudes and preferences across the three perspectives, indicating that for an intervention to be successful it will require a dynamic partnership with the target audiences.

No abstract

Abstract. Long-term antimalarial chemoprophylaxis is currently used by deployed U.S. military personnel. Previous small, short-term efficacy studies have shown variable rates of side effects among patients taking various forms of chemoprophylaxis, though reliable safety and tolerability data on long-term use are limited. We conducted a survey of troops returning to Fort Drum, NY following a 12-month deployment to Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. Of the 2,351 respondents, 95% reported taking at least one form of prophylaxis during their deployment, and 90% were deployed for > 10 months. Compliance with daily doxycycline was poor (60%) compared with 80% with weekly mefloquine (MQ). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by approximately 30% with both MQ and doxycycline, with 10% discontinuing doxycycline compared with 4% of MQ users. Only 6% and 31% of soldiers reported use of bed nets and skin repellents, respectively. Compliance with long-term malaria prophylaxis was poor, and there were substantial tolerability issues based on these anonymous survey results, though fewer with MQ than doxycycline. Given few long-term antimalarial chemoprophylaxis options, there is an unmet medical need for new antimalarials safe for long-term use.

This study may have implications for how to enhance family-based pediatric weight management programs for children ages 7-11 years.