Dataset Information

Emergency medicine physician attitudes toward HPV vaccine uptake in an emergency department setting.

ABSTRACT: A physician's recommendation is the most effective published method of motivating HPV vaccination initiation. The emergency department (ED) is the 'public health safety net', and often the only access to care for underserved populations. Recommendation of the HPV vaccine in the ED is a potential avenue to improve vaccination rates among sub-populations who do not have access to routine medical care. We assessed willingness of EM physicians to recommend the vaccine, target high-risk women, and disclose perceived barriers to vaccination in the ED. A cross sectional study using an 11-item survey, was used to assess physician attitudes toward recommending the HPV vaccine in an ED setting to age eligible patients. 67.4% stated they would recommend the vaccine, 23.9% were neutral, and 8.7% would not recommend the vaccine to age eligible patients in the ED. 41% noted lack of adequate reimbursement for vaccination as a barrier to vaccination in the ED (P<0.05). Physicians were comfortable targeting women at high risk for cervical cancer for vaccination (P<0.05). EM physicians are comfortable targeting high-risk women for HPV vaccination in an ED setting. Support of EM physicians in the national effort to improve HPV vaccine uptake is an important step in eradicating a largely preventable yet lethal cancer.

SUBMITTER: Hill M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4977447 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emergency medicine physician attitudes toward HPV vaccine uptake in an emergency department setting.

Hill Mandy M Okugo Glory G

Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics 20141030 9

A physician's recommendation is the most effective published method of motivating HPV vaccination initiation. The emergency department (ED) is the 'public health safety net', and often the only access to care for underserved populations. Recommendation of the HPV vaccine in the ED is a potential avenue to improve vaccination rates among sub-populations who do not have access to routine medical care. We assessed willingness of EM physicians to recommend the vaccine, target high-risk women, and di ...[more]

PMID: 25483493

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLaw enforcement officers (LEO) interact with patients and clinicians in the emergency department (ED) for many reasons. There is no current consensus on what should comprise, or how to best enact, guidelines that ideally balance LEO activities in the service of public safety with patient health, autonomy, and privacy. The purpose of this study was to explore how a national sample of emergency physicians (EP) perceives activities of LEOs during the delivery of emergency medical care.MethodsMembers of the Emergency Medicine Practice Research Network (EMPRN) were recruited via an email-delivered, anonymous survey that elicited experiences, perceptions, and knowledge of policies that guide interactions with LEOs in the ED. The survey included multiple-choice items, which we analyzed descriptively, and open-ended questions, which we analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsOf 765 EPs in the EMPRN, 141 (18.4%) completed the survey. Respondents represented diverse locations and years in practice. A total of 113 (82%) respondents were White, and 114 (81%) were male. Over a third reported LEO presence in the ED on a daily basis. A majority (62%) perceived LEO presence as helpful for clinicians and clinical practice. When asked about the factors deemed highly important in allowing LEOs to access patients during care, 75% reported patients' potential as a threat to public safety. A small minority of respondents (12%) considered the patients' consent or preference to interact with LEOs. While 86% of EPs felt that information-gathering by LEO was appropriate in the ED setting, only 13% were aware of policy to guide these decisions. Perceived barriers to implementation of policy in this area included: issues of enforcement; leadership; education; operational challenges; and potential negative consequences.ConclusionFuture research is warranted to explore how policies and practices that guide intersections between emergency medical care and law enforcement impact patients, clinicians, and the communities that health systems serve.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccinations are now recommended in the United States (U.S.) for children ≥ 6 months old. However, pediatric vaccination rates remain low, particularly in the Hispanic/Latinx population.ObjectiveUsing the 4C vaccine hesitancy framework (calculation, complacency, confidence, convenience), we examined parental attitudes in the emergency department (ED) towards COVID-19 vaccination, identified dimensions of parental vaccine hesitancy, and assessed parental willingness to have their child receive the COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsAs part of a larger multi-methods study examining influenza vaccine hesitancy, we conducted interviews that included questions about COVID-19 vaccine authorization for children. We used directed content analysis to extract qualitative themes from 3 groups of parents in the ED: Hispanic/Latinx Spanish speaking (HS), Hispanic/Latinx English speaking (HE), non-Hispanic/non-Latinx White English speaking (WE). Themes were triangulated with the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey, where higher scores indicate increased vaccine hesitancy.ResultsFactors influencing vaccine hesitancy were mapped to the 4C framework from 58 sets of interviews and PACVs. HE and HS parents, compared to WE parents, had less knowledge about COVID-19 and its vaccine, and more beliefs in COVID-19 vaccine myths. However, both HS and HE parent groups were more inclined to endorse COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness as a reason to have their children vaccinated. HS parents felt that COVID-19 increased their fear of illnesses in general and were worried about confusing COVID-19 with other infections. Median PACV scores of HS (Mdn = 20) and HE (Mdn = 20) parent groups were higher than of WE parents (Mdn = 10), but parental willingness to have their child receive COVID-19 vaccination was similar across groups.ConclusionsHigher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among HS and HE parents compared to WE parents may be attributed to insufficient knowledge about COVID-19, its vaccine, along with COVID-19 vaccine myths. Efforts to provide targeted vaccine education to different populations is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care provider usage of mobile devices is increasing globally; however, there is little understanding of patient perceptions on this behavior in a health care setting.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess patients' attitudes toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department and to identify predictors of these attitudes.MethodsThe study was carried out at the emergency department of a large academic tertiary care medical center in Lebanon. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted by administering a questionnaire to medically stable adult patients who presented to the emergency department with an emergency severity index of 3, 4, or 5 between January 2017 and March 2018. The questionnaire collected relevant patient demographic information and included questions related to their mobile device usage along with those evaluating attitudes for the use of mobile devices by health care providers with respect to six major domains: role in health care, distraction potential, impact on communication, empathy, privacy, and professionalism. The attitude toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department was the main outcome variable. A stepwise logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the outcome variable and the demographic and attitude-related independent variables.ResultsAmong the 438 eligible patients, 338 patients responded to the questionnaire for a response rate of 70.0%. Overall, 313/338 (92.6%) respondents agreed that mobile devices improve health care delivery, whereas 132/338 (39.1%) respondents were opposed to their usage by health care providers in the emergency department (95% CI: 34.0-44.4). The majority (240/338, 71.0%) of patients agreed that mobile devices are a source of distraction to health care providers in the workplace. Females (odds ratio [OR]=1.67, 95% CI: 1.00-2.78) as well as all patients (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.36-4.76) who believed that mobile devices were a source of distraction, reflecting a lack of professionalism (OR=2.77, 95% CI 1.59-4.82) and impacting the provider's ability to relate to the patient (OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.72-4.99), were more likely to agree that mobile devices should not be used in the emergency department.ConclusionsPatients' negative attitude toward mobile device use in the emergency department is largely driven by patient gender (females), patient perception of the distraction potential of the devices, and their negative impact on the health care provider's empathy and professionalism. The findings of this study shed light on the importance of encouraging stakeholders to impose a digital professionalism code of conduct for providers working in acute health care settings.

Dataset Information

Emergency medicine physician attitudes toward HPV vaccine uptake in an emergency department setting.

Publications

Emergency medicine physician attitudes toward HPV vaccine uptake in an emergency department setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets