The overall goal of this project is to determine whether a novel and innovative provider communication strategy is effective in improving vaccine acceptance among vaccine-hesitant parents (VHPs) and visit experience among VHPs and their health care providers.
The primary goal of this covariate constrained, cluster randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative provider communication strategy (PIVOT-MI) intervention in improving provider-parent vaccine discussions and increasing vaccine acceptance. Providers at intervention clinics will be trained to use the PIVOT-MI strategy in which a presumptive format is used to initiate the childhood vaccine recommendation with all parents, followed by use of motivational interviewing (MI) with parents who voice resistance to that recommendation. Providers at control clinics will deliver care as usual. Specific aims are to evaluate the impact of PIVOT-MI, relative to control, on (1) child's immunization status; (2) parent-rated visit experience with their child's provider; and (3) change in provider experience of the vaccine discussion with vaccine-hesitant parents.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
17,446
Providers in participating intervention clinics will be trained in the PIVOT-MI strategy in which a presumptive format is used to initiate the childhood vaccine recommendation with all parents followed by use of motivational interviewing (MI) with parents who voice resistance to that recommendation. Parent participants will receive PIVOT-MI.
Providers at participating control clinics will deliver care as usual. Parent participants will receive standard care.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Seattle Children's Hospital
Seattle, Washington, United States
Child Immunization Status at 19 Months, 0 Days of Age Characterized as Percent Days Under-immunized (DUI)
Immunization status was obtained from WA or CO state immunization registry or directly from participating practices. At enrollment, parent/infant dyads completed the Parental Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines short version (PACV-SF), a validated survey scored from 0 to 4. A score of 2 or more represented parent/infant dyad with negative vaccine attitudes. Among parent/infant dyads with negative vaccine attitudes, the child's immunization status at 19 months was calculated based on recommended ages and intervals between doses provided by ACIP for summing late days for each dose of the 8 routine vaccines recommended by 19 months (HepB, rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate, inactivated polio virus, MMR, and varicella). There was a max of 23 recommended doses for the 8 vaccines - doses varied depending on brand. Total max DUI was a sum of total possible days late for each dose through 19mo(2830 days).Percent DUI was calculated by dividing child's DUI by the total maximum DUI.
Time frame: Child's immunization status at 19 months of age
Post-Visit Parental Satisfaction Survey Scored on a 7-point Likert Scale
To assess parental satisfaction with their clinician during a health supervision visit, we asked all vaccine hesitant parents (identified by a Parental Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines-Short Form (PAC-V SF) score of 2 or more) in both both intervention and control arms if they would complete an additional 15-question survey over the phone within 24-48 hours after the completion of a health supervision visit for their child around 6 months of age. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, we had to extend the time frame to within 1 week after a health supervision visit at 2, 4, or 6 months of age. Ratings were on a 7-point Likert scale - Very Poor (1), Poor (2), Fair (3), Good (4), Very Good (5), Excellent (6), Outstanding (7). Overall experience with a rating of "Good (4)" or higher was considered to be a satisfactory visit.
Time frame: approximately 6 months post birth
Change in Clinician Self-Efficacy With Parent/Infant Dyads With Negative Vaccine Attitudes - Pre-vs Post-Surveys
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
To assess changes in clinicians' perceived self-efficacy when discussing vaccines with parents/infant dyads with negative vaccine attitudes, a survey was administered to all participating clinicians at baseline and at study completion asking about vaccine recommendation behaviors and how they perceived their impact on parental decision making regarding vaccines. Self-efficacy was assessed with a 3-part question scored on a Likert Scale - Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Strongly Agree. Changes in perceived self-efficacy over time was assessed by comparing the number of clinicians who answered "Strongly Agree" or "Somewhat Agree" to the statement "When parents wish to delay or refuse childhood vaccines for their child, there is not much I can say to change their minds" at baseline and at post-study. Note that fewer clinicians completed the post-study survey due to such factors as retirement and staff turnover.
Time frame: At Baseline and Post-Intervention (up to 2 years after baseline)