Coaching primary care clinics for HPV vaccination quality improvement: Comparing in-person and webinar implementation

State health departments commonly use quality improvement coaching as an implementation strategy for improving low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but such coaching can be resource intensive. To explore opportunities for improving efficiency, we compared in-person and webinar delivery of coaching sessions on implementation outcomes, including reach, acceptability, and delivery cost. In 2015, we randomly assigned 148 high-volume primary care clinics in Illinois, Michigan, and Washington State to receive either in-person or webinar coaching. Coaching sessions lasted about 1 hr and used our Immunization Report Card to facilitate assessment and feedback. Clinics served over 213,000 patients ages 11–17. We used provider surveys and delivery cost assessment to collect implementation data. This report is focused exclusively on the implementation aspects of the intervention. More providers attended in-person than webinar coaching sessions (mean 9 vs. 5 providers per clinic, respectively, p = .004). More providers shared the Immunization Report Card at clinic staff meetings in the in-person than webinar arm (49% vs. 20%; p = .029). In both arms, providers’ belief that their clinics’ HPV vaccination coverage was too low increased, as did their self-efficacy to help their clinics improve (p < .05). Providers rated coaching sessions in the two arms equally highly on acceptability. Delivery cost per clinic was $733 for in-person coaching versus$461 for webinar coaching. In-person and webinar coaching were well received and yielded improvements in provider beliefs and self-efficacy regarding HPV vaccine quality improvement. In summary, in-person coaching cost more than webinar coaching per clinic reached, but reached more providers. Further implementation research is needed to understand how and for whom webinar coaching may be appropriate

Questions and concerns about HPV vaccine: A communication experiment

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify effective responses to parents’ questions and concerns about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. METHODS: In 2017–2018, we surveyed a national sample of 1196 US parents of children aged 9 to 17 years. We recorded brief videos of a pediatrician providing messages that addressed 7 HPV vaccination topics that commonly elicit questions or concerns (eg, recommended age). We randomly assigned parents to 1 of the message topics; parents then viewed 4 videos on that topic in random order and evaluated the messages. RESULTS: Parents were more confident in HPV vaccine when they were exposed to messages that addressed lack of knowledge about HPV vaccine (b = 0.13; P = .01), messages that included information about cancer prevention (b = 0.11; P < .001), messages that required a higher reading level (b = 0.02; P = .01), and messages that were longer (b = 0.03; P < .001). Parents were less confident in HPV vaccine when exposed to messages in which urgency was expressed (b = −0.06; P = .005). Analyses conducted by using HPV vaccine motivation as an outcome revealed the same pattern of findings. CONCLUSIONS: We provide research-tested messages that providers can use to address parents’ HPV vaccination questions and concerns about 7 common topics. Important principles for increasing message effectiveness are to include information on the benefits of vaccination (including cancer prevention) and avoid expressing urgency to vaccinate when addressing parents' questions or concerns. Additionally, providers may need to be prepared to have longer conversations with parents who express concerns about HPV vaccine, especially regarding safety and side effects