Background Receiving a healthcare provider’s recommendation is a strong predictor of HPV vaccination, but little is known empirically about which types of recommendation are most influential. Thus, we sought to investigate the relationship between recommendation quality and HPV vaccination among U.S. adolescents. Methods In 2014, we conducted a national, online survey of 1,495 parents of 11- to 17-year-old adolescents. Parents reported whether providers endorsed HPV vaccination strongly, encouraged same-day vaccination, and discussed cancer prevention. Using an index of these quality indicators, we categorized parents as having received no, low-quality, or high-quality recommendations for HPV vaccination. Separate multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between recommendation quality and HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 dose), follow through (3 doses, among initiators), refusal, and delay. Results Almost half (48%) of parents reported no provider recommendation for HPV vaccination, while 16% received low-quality recommendations and 36% received high-quality recommendations. Compared to no recommendation, high-quality recommendations were associated with over nine times the odds of HPV vaccine initiation (23% vs. 74%, OR=9.31, 95% CI, 7.10–12.22) and over three times the odds of follow through (17% vs. 44%, OR=3.82, 95% CI, 2.39–6.11). Low-quality recommendations were more modestly associated with initiation (OR=4.13, 95% CI, 2.99–5.70), but not follow through. Parents who received high-versus low-quality recommendations less often reported HPV vaccine refusal or delay. Conclusions High-quality recommendations were strongly associated with HPV vaccination behavior, but only about one-third of parents received them. Interventions are needed to improve not only whether, but how providers recommend HPV vaccination for adolescents.

BackgroundScientists and practitioners alike need reliable, valid measures of contextual factors that influence implementation. Yet, few existing measures demonstrate reliability or validity. To meet this need, we developed and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of several constructs within the Inner Setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsWe searched the literature for existing measures for the 7 Inner Setting domain constructs (Culture Overall, Culture Stress, Culture Effort, Implementation Climate, Learning Climate, Leadership Engagement, and Available Resources). We adapted items for the healthcare context, pilot-tested the adapted measures in 4 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and implemented the revised measures in 78 FQHCs in the 7 states (N = 327 respondents) with a focus on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices. To psychometrically assess our measures, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA; structural validity), assessed inter-item consistency (reliability), computed scale correlations (discriminant validity), and calculated inter-rater reliability and agreement (organization-level construct reliability and validity).ResultsCFAs for most constructs exhibited good model fit (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, RMSEA < 0.08), with almost all factor loadings exceeding 0.40. Scale reliabilities ranged from good (0.7 ≤ α < 0.9) to excellent (α ≥ 0.9). Scale correlations fell below 0.90, indicating discriminant validity. Inter-rater reliability and agreement were sufficiently high to justify measuring constructs at the clinic-level.ConclusionsOur findings provide psychometric evidence in support of the CFIR Inner Setting measures. Our findings also suggest the Inner Setting measures from individuals can be aggregated to represent the clinic-level. Measurement of the Inner Setting constructs can be useful in better understanding and predicting implementation in FQHCs and can be used to identify targets of strategies to accelerate and enhance implementation efforts in FQHCs.

No abstract

Background: We sought to estimate the national prevalence of HPV vaccine refusal and delay in a nationally-representative sample of parents of adolescents. We also compared parents who refused versus delayed HPV vaccine in terms of their vaccination beliefs and clinical communication preferences. Methods: In 2014 to 2015, we conducted an online survey of 1,484 US parents who reported on an 11-to 17-year-old child in their household. We used weighted multinomial logistic regression to assess correlates of HPV vaccine refusal and delay. Results: Overall, 28% of parents reported that they had ever "refused or decided not to get" HPV vaccine for their child, and an additional 8% of parents reported that they had "delayed or put off getting" HPV vaccine. Compared to no refusal/delay, refusal was associated with lower confidence in adolescent vaccination (relative risk ratio [RRR] D 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.91), lower perceived HPV vaccine effectiveness (RRR D 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.91), and higher perceived harms (RRR D 3.49, 95% CI, 2.65-4.60). In contrast, delay was associated with needing more information (RRR D 1.76, 95% CI, 1.08-2.85). Most parents rated physicians and information sheets as helpful for making decisions about HPV vaccination, although parents who reported refusal endorsed these resources less often. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that HPV vaccine refusal is common among parents of adolescents and may have increased relative to previous estimates. Because the vaccination beliefs and communication preferences of parents who refuse appear to differ from those who delay, targeted communication strategies may be needed to effectively address HPV vaccine hesitancy.