Social Media Vaccine Websites: A Comparative Analysis of Public and Moderated Websites

The internet is an important source of vaccine information for parents. We evaluated and compared the interactive content on an expert moderated vaccine social media (VSM) website developed for parents of children 24 months of age or younger and enrolled in a health care system to a random sample of interactions extracted from publicly available parenting and vaccine-focused blogs and discussion forums. The study observation period was September 2013 through July 2016. Three hundred sixty-seven eligible websites were located using search terms related to vaccines. Seventy-nine samples of interactions about vaccines on public blogs and discussion boards and 61 interactions from the expert moderated VSM website were coded for tone, vaccine stance, and accuracy of information. If information was inaccurate, it was coded as corrected, partially corrected or uncorrected. Using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, we compared coded interactions from the VSM website with coded interactions from the sample of publicly available websites. We then identified representative quotes to illustrate the quantitative results. Tone, vaccine stance, and accuracy of information were significantly different (all p \u3c .05). Publicly available vaccine websites tended to be more contentious and have a negative stance toward vaccines. These websites also had inaccurate and uncorrected information. In contrast, the expert moderated website had a more civil tone, minimal posting of inaccurate information, with very little participant-to-participant interaction. An expert moderated, interactive vaccine website appears to provide a platform for parents to gather accurate vaccine information, express their vaccine concerns and ask questions of vaccine experts

Novel Opioid Safety Clinic Initiative to Deliver Guideline-Concordant Chronic Opioid Therapy in Primary Care

Objective: To develop and evaluate a novel Opioid Safety Clinic (OSC) initiative to enhance adherence to guidelines on the assessment and monitoring of patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy (COT). Patients and Methods: The OSC was developed at an urban Federally Qualified Health Center to provide guideline-concordant care for COT, standardize workflows, and efficiently use clinic staff. We evaluated the OSC using a matched cohort study. Five hundred thirty-nine patients participated in the clinic between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Of these, 472 clinic participants were matched to 472 nonparticipants by sex and age on the date of the OSC visit. The OSC was evaluated by its completion rates of standardized pain assessments, urine toxicology, and naloxone dispensings. We conducted logistic regression comparing OSC participants to OSC nonparticipants. Results: A total of 539 patients attended an OSC visit, representing approximately 53% of patients in the chronic opioid registry. The OSC participants were more likely than nonparticipants to have completed a pain assessment (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 169.8; 95% CI, 98.3-293.5), completed a urine toxicology (aOR, 46.1; 95% CI, 30.4-69.9), or had naloxone dispensed (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3) over 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: The OSC model improved adherence to guideline-concordant COT in primary care. Future research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on pain, quality of life, and adverse events from opioid analgesics