Communicating about HPV vaccination: Lessons learned from physicians and parents Melissa B. Gilkey, PhD Assistant Professor of Population Medicine Harvard Medical School & Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute melissa_gilkey@hphc.org 617-991-8240
2 Disclosures I, Melissa Gilkey, have been asked to disclose any significant relationships with commercial entities that are either providing financial support for this program or whose products or services are mentioned during my presentations. Data collection for this study was funded through an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer. I may discuss the use of vaccines in a manner not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but in accordance with ACIP recommendations.
3
4 HPV vaccination guidelines Routine Males and females, ages 11-12 Late Females to age 26 Males to age 21 Concomitant vaccination Tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap) Meningococcal vaccine
Diagnosed with genital warts 5 Accumulating data on effectiveness 16% HPV vaccine introduction 12% Women <21 years 8% Men <21 years 4% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (Ali, et al., 2013)
6 9-valent HPV vaccine HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, 58 Could prevent up to ~90% of cervical cancers with widespread adoption
% Vaccinated 7 Adolescent immunization coverage, ages 13-15 100 90 Healthy People 2020 Goal Tdap 80 Meningococcal 70 60 50 40 HPV (3 doses, females) 30 HPV (3 doses, males) 20 10 0 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Year Data from National Immunization Survey-Teen
% Vaccinated 8 Adolescent immunization coverage, ages 13-15 100 90 Healthy People 2020 Goal 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Year 53,000 preventable cervical cancers Data from National Immunization Survey-Teen
9 Providers HPV vaccine recommendations Highly influential Adolescents whose parents receive recommendations have ~18x higher odds of being vaccinated Infrequent 36% of girls and 58% of boys, ages 13-17, have not received a recommendation Late >60% of providers prefer to recommend HPV vaccine as optional for 11- to 12-year-olds (Stokley et al., 2014; McRee et al., 2014)
10 Study aim To assess physicians perceptions and communication practices related to recommending adolescent vaccines for patients, ages 11-12
11 Physician Communication Study, 2014 Cross-sectional, online survey Eligibility criteria Pediatric or family medicine specialty Provider of preventive care to patients ages 11-17 National sample (n=776) 53% pediatrics specialty 68% male 55% 20 years in practice
12
% who endorse highly 13 Vaccine endorsement 100 80 60 40 Physicians perceptions of vaccine endorsement by Physicians themselves Parents 20 0 Tdap Meningococcal HPV Vaccine
% who endorse highly 14 Vaccine endorsement 100 80 60 40 Physicians perceptions of vaccine endorsement by Physicians themselves Parents 20 0 Tdap Meningococcal HPV Vaccine
15 Discussion length (minutes) Mean (Standard Error) Tdap 1.9 (0.09) Meningococcal 2.2 (0.12) HPV 3.7 (0.12)
16 Discussion order (n=494) Discuss first 73% 15% 12% Tdap Meningococcal HPV Discuss last 8% 22% 70% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
17 Communication context Use sick visits for adolescent vaccination? 38% Tdap 34% meningococcal 30% HPV
18 Communication context Use sick visits for adolescent vaccination? 38% Tdap 34% meningococcal 30% HPV Do school entry requirements for Tdap make HPV vaccine seem less important? 74% agreed
19
20 Key findings Physicians endorsed HPV vaccine less strongly than other vaccines and often discussed it last Physicians perceived HPV vaccine discussions to be burdensome, requiring more time and engendering less parental support than other vaccines (Gilkey et al, Prev Med, 2015)
21 Discussion Physicians talk about HPV vaccine in ways that likely undercut parents trust Communication strategies are needed to support physicians in recommending HPV vaccine with greater confidence and efficiency Muller-Lyer Illusion
22 Discussion Physicians talk about HPV vaccine in ways that likely undercut parents trust Communication strategies are needed to support physicians in recommending HPV vaccine with greater confidence and efficiency Muller-Lyer Illusion
23 HPV Vaccine Recommendation Quality Framework Concomitance Recommend same way, same day Guidelines-based rationale Focus on routine vs requirements Timeliness Recommend by age 12 Consistency Deliver routine vs risk-based recommendations Urgency Recommend same-day vaccination Strength of endorsement Say vaccine is very important (Gilkey & McRee, Hum Vaccin Immunother, 2016)
24 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit.
25 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Concomitance
26 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Concomitance Guidelines
27 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Timeliness
28 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Timeliness Consistency
29 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Timeliness Consistency Urgency
30 Modeling effective recommendations Now that Michael is 11, he s due for three shots that are really important for all kids his age: meningitis, HPV, and Tdap. We ll give these at the end of the visit. Timeliness Consistency Urgency Endorsement
31 HPV Vaccine Recommendation Quality Framework Concomitance Recommend same way, same day Guidelines-based rationale Focus on routine vs requirements Timeliness Recommend by age 12 Consistency Deliver routine vs risk-based recommendations Urgency Recommend same-day vaccination Strength of endorsement Say vaccine is very important Persistence Recommend again after declination
32 Secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination, among parents who initially declined it (n=484) No 55% Yes 45%
33 Secondary acceptance of HPV vaccination, among parents who initially declined it (n=484) Intend 24% No 55% No 31% Yes 45%
34
35 Thank you Support provided by Pfizer (Grant #8970803) National Cancer Institute (K22CA186979; F31CA189411; R25CA57726) Contact Melissa B. Gilkey, PhD Harvard Medical School & Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute Phone: 617-991-8240; Email: melissa_gilkey@hphc.org Reference Gilkey MB, Moss JL, Coyne-Beasley T, Hall ME, Shah PD, Brewer NT. Physician communication about adolescent vaccination: How is human papillomavirus vaccine different? Prev Med. 2015;77:181-5.