The obstetrician-gynecologist's role in vaccine-preventable diseases and immunization

Prenatal care providers' perceptions of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccine for themselves and for pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Prenatal care providers will play an important role in the acceptance of SARS-Cov-2 vaccination for pregnant women.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the perceptions of French prenatal care providers: midwives, general practitioners (GPs) and obstetricians and gynaecologists (Ob-Gyn) regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

An anonymous online survey was sent to members of French professional societies representing prenatal practitioners. The participants were asked to answer questions on their characteristics and give their opinions of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for themselves and women who are pregnant or willing to become pregnant.

RESULTS

Access to the survey was opened from January 11th, 2021, to March 1st, 2021. A total of 1,416 responses were collected from 749 Ob-Gyn, 598 midwives and 69 GPs. Most respondents (86.7% overall, 90.4% for Ob-GYN, 81.1% for GPs and 80.1% for midwives) agreed to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 would be offered to pregnant women by 49.4% 95%CI [48.1-50.8] of the participants. Midwives were less likely to recommend vaccination than GP and Ob-Gyn (37.5%, 50.7% and 58.8%, respectively). The multinomial logistic regression revealed that being an obstetrician, working in a group, usually offering a flu vaccine and wanting to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were positively associated with considering pregnant women for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Most French prenatal healthcare providers are favourable towards vaccinating pregnant women, but a large minority express reservation. More evidence on safety and involvement by professional organisations will be important to encourage the access of pregnant women to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Vaccination during pregnancy: Canadian maternity care providers' opinions and practices

A number of countries have implemented vaccination in pregnancy as a strategy to reduce the burden of influenza and pertussis. The aim of this study was to assess the involvement of Canadian maternity care providers in administration of vaccines to their pregnant patients. A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent to family physicians, obstetricians-gynecologists, midwives, pharmacists, and nurses. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine variables independently associated with offering vaccination services in pregnancy in providers' practice. A total of 1,135 participants participated. Overall, 64% (n = 724) of the participants reported offering vaccines in their practice and 56% (n = 632) reported offering vaccines to pregnant patients. The main reasons reported for not offering vaccination services in pregnancy were the belief that vaccination was outside of the scope of practice; logistical issues around access to vaccines; or lack of staff to administer vaccines. In multivariable analysis, the main factors associated with vaccination of pregnant patients in practices where vaccination services were offered were: providers' confidence in counseling pregnant patients about vaccines, seeing fewer than 11 pregnant patients on average each week, and being a nurse or a family physician. Although the majority of participants expressed strong support for vaccination during pregnancy, half were not offering vaccination services in their practice. Many were not equipped to offer vaccines in their practice or felt that it was not their role to do so. To enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake in pregnancy, it will be important to address the logistical barriers identified in this study.

Clinician perspectives on strategies to improve patient maternal immunization acceptability in obstetrics and gynecology practice settings

Pregnancy is an ideal time to communicate with women about vaccines for themselves and their infants, yet maternal immunization rates remain suboptimal. This study aimed to identify clinic, provider, and staff-related attributes and facilitators to be utilized for a comprehensive vaccine intervention in ob-gyn clinical settings. We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 providers, both healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, nurse practitioners, midwives) and practice managers, from urban and suburban ob-gyn practices in Georgia and Colorado about their immunization attitudes, practices, and patient experiences. Qualitative analyses included Pearson correlation tests to evaluate patterns and relationships within the data to determine themes. Six major themes emerged: 1) strong provider "buy in" for maternal immunization; 2) the supporting role of clinical/interpersonal cues for vaccine promotion; 3) varying provider-patient communication approaches and its influence on maternal and pediatric uptake; 4) an urgent need for a designated office immunization champion; 5) reimbursement and practice implementation challenges; and 6) region differences in attitudes and values toward maternal immunization. Although providers expressed strong support for maternal immunization practices and offered environmental cues for vaccine promotion, practices often lacked a designated, structured role for an immunization champion equipped to manage delicate conversations with patients. The findings reflect needs for immunization champion identification, training, and support, along with best practices guidelines to improve coordination of vaccine promotion and delivery efforts in ob-gyn provider offices. Additionally, provider training on communication approaches to enhance acceptance and uptake of maternal vaccines is warranted.

Efforts to Improve Immunization Coverage during Pregnancy among Ob-Gyns

Background. Influenza and Tdap vaccines are vital factors for improving maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Methods. A prospective, longitudinal study was conducted to determine whether the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG's) efforts to increase ob-gyn use of their immunization toolkits and vaccination administration were successful. Pre- and postintervention questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1,500 ACOG members between August 2012 and July 2015. Results. Significantly more postintervention survey ob-gyns reported that they received the immunization toolkits than preintervention survey ob-gyns (84.5% versus 67.0%, p < .001). The large majority of ob-gyns from both surveys (76.9% versus 78.9%) reported that they offered or planned to offer influenza vaccinations to their patients for the 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 flu seasons. Postintervention survey respondents were significantly more likely than preintervention survey participants to report that they routinely offer Tdap vaccinations to all patients during pregnancy (76.8% versus 59.3%, p < .001). Conclusion. ACOG's efforts to improve ob-gyn use of immunization toolkits and vaccine administration appear to have been successful in several ways. ACOG's toolkits are an example of an effective intervention to overcome barriers to offering vaccines and help improve influenza and Tdap immunization coverage for pregnant women.

Maternal immunization. Clinical experiences, challenges, and opportunities in vaccine acceptance

Maternal immunization holds tremendous promise to improve maternal and neonatal health for a number of infectious conditions. The unique susceptibilities of pregnant women to infectious conditions, as well as the ability of maternally-derived antibody to offer vital neonatal protection (via placental transfer), together have produced the recent increased attention on maternal immunization. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) currently recommends 2 immunizations for all pregnant women lacking contraindication, inactivated Influenza and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). Given ongoing research the number of vaccines recommended during pregnancy is likely to increase. Thus, achieving high vaccination coverage of pregnant women for all recommended immunizations is a key public health enterprise. This review will focus on the present state of vaccine acceptance in pregnancy, with attention to currently identified barriers and determinants of vaccine acceptance. Additionally, opportunities for improvement will be considered.

Risk management of seasonal influenza during pregnancy: current perspectives

Influenza poses unique risks to pregnant women, who are particularly susceptible to morbidity and mortality. Historically, pregnant women have been overrepresented among patients with severe illness and complications from influenza, and have been more likely to require hospitalization and intensive care unit admission. An increased risk of adverse outcomes is also present for fetuses/neonates born to women affected by influenza during pregnancy. These risks to mothers and babies have been observed during both nonpandemic and pandemic influenza seasons. During the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009-2010, pregnant women were more likely to be hospitalized or admitted to intensive care units, and were at higher risk of death compared to nonpregnant adults. Vaccination remains the most effective intervention to prevent severe illness, and antiviral medications are an important adjunct to ameliorate disease when it occurs. Unfortunately, despite national guidelines recommending universal vaccination for women who are pregnant during influenza season, actual vaccination rates do not achieve desired targets among pregnant women. Pregnant women are also sometimes reluctant to use antiviral medications during pregnancy. Some of the barriers to use of vaccines and medications during pregnancy are a lack of knowledge of recommendations and of safety data. By improving knowledge and understanding of influenza and vaccination recommendations, vaccine acceptance rates among pregnant women can be improved. Currently, the appropriate use of vaccination and antiviral medications is the best line of defense against influenza and its sequelae among pregnant women, and strategies to increase acceptance are crucial. This article will review the importance of influenza in pregnancy, and discuss vaccination and antiviral medications for pregnant women.

Missed opportunities: a national survey of obstetricians about attitudes on maternal and infant immunization

The recent reoccurrence of several vaccine-preventable diseases demonstrates the need for new techniques to promote childhood vaccination. Many mothers make decisions regarding vaccination of their children during pregnancy. As a result, obstetricians have a unique opportunity to influence maternal decisions on this crucial component of child health. Our objective was to understand OB/GYNs' attitudes, beliefs, and current practices toward providing vaccinations to pregnant patients and providing information about routine childhood immunizations during standard prenatal care. We surveyed OB/GYNs in the United States about their vaccination practices and perceptions during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. Most (84%) respondents indicated their practice would be administering H1N1 vaccines to pregnant patients. While a majority (98%) of responding providers felt childhood vaccination is important, relatively few (47%) felt that they could influence mothers' vaccination choices for their children. Discussion of routine childhood immunization between obstetricians and their patients is an area for future improvements in childhood vaccination.

Are healthcare workers' intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Summit of Independent European Vaccination Experts (SIEVE) recommended in 2007 that efforts be made to improve healthcare workers' knowledge and beliefs about vaccines, and their attitudes towards them, to increase vaccination coverage. The aim of the study was to compile and analyze the areas of disagreement in the existing evidence about the relationship between healthcare workers' knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about vaccines and their intentions to vaccinate the populations they serve.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases for studies published in any of seven different languages between February 1998 and June 2009. We included studies conducted in developed countries that used statistical methods to relate or associate the variables included in our research question. Two independent reviewers verified that the studies met the inclusion criteria, assessed the quality of the studies and extracted their relevant characteristics. The data were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 2354 references identified in the initial search, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The diversity in the study designs and in the methods used to measure the variables made it impossible to integrate the results, and each study had to be assessed individually. All the studies found an association in the direction postulated by the SIEVE experts: among healthcare workers, higher awareness, beliefs that are more aligned with scientific evidence and more favorable attitudes toward vaccination were associated with greater intentions to vaccinate. All the studies included were cross-sectional; thus, no causal relationship between the variables was established.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that interventions aimed at improving healthcare workers' knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about vaccines should be encouraged, and their impact on vaccination coverage should be assessed.

Influenza immunization in pregnancy: overcoming patient and health care provider barriers

Seasonal influenza imparts disproportionate morbidity and death to pregnant women. Immunization against influenza is the most effective intervention to mitigate the burden of influenza disease during pregnancy; nevertheless, immunization rates remain suboptimal in this patient population. Therefore, there is a clear need for strategies to optimize influenza vaccination among pregnant women. We reviewed potential patient and health care provider barriers to influenza immunization and propose effective strategies for overcoming them.

Influenza Vaccine Coverage among Pregnant Women in a Public Hospital System during the 2009-2010 Pandemic Influenza Season

The purpose of this study was to compare influenza vaccination rates of pregnant women in a public safety-net health system to national coverage rates during the 2009-2010 pandemic influenza season. A chart review of a random sample of deliveries was undertaken to determine rates of coverage and predictors of vaccine coverage of women who obtained prenatal care and delivered in our health system. Rates were calculated from deliveries from when the vaccine was first available through April 30, 2010. Coverage rates were 54% for the seasonal influenza vaccine and 51% for the H1N1 vaccine. Race/ethnicity, insurance status and language spoken did not predict the receipt of either vaccine. When we included only births which occurred through March 12, 2010, as was done in a large population-based study, the rates were 61% and 59%, respectively. Our rates are about 10% higher than the rates reported in that study. Our comprehensive strategy for promoting vaccine coverage achieved higher vaccination rates in a safety-net health system, which serves groups historically less likely to be vaccinated, than those reported for the pregnant population at large.

Colorectal cancer screening compliance and contemplation in gynecology patients

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) should be a necessary part of gynecology (GYN) providers' preventive practices. The purpose of our study is to examine CRCS recommendations and adherence in this population.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to a prospective cohort of patients awaiting health maintenance exams at six academic and private gynecology offices. Patients reported demographics, CRC/breast/cervical screening adherence, CRCS recommendations, and future likelihood of CRCS.

RESULTS

A total of 461 women aged 51 years and older completed the questionnaire. Sixty-six percent of respondents were compliant with CRCS compared to 93% and 86% for breast and cervical cancer screening, respectively (p < 0.001). GYN providers recommended CRCS in 43% of patients. Sixty-three percent were planning to undergo future CRCS. On multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with CRCS adherence included (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval): older age (1.1 per year, 1.1-1.2), previous mammography (3.7, 1.4-9.7), family history (FH) of CRC/polyps (1.9, 1.0-3.4), friend with CRC (2.6, 1.5-4.7), and any doctor recommending CRCS (8.2, 4.6-14.7). CRCS rates were higher among patients who received a recommendation from a PCP (primary care provider) than from a GYN provider. Factors associated with intention to undergo CRCS include previous mammography (1.4, 4.2-12.0), any doctor recommendation (6.4, 3.7-11.0), and FH of CRC/polyps (3.5, 1.9-6.3). CRCS recommendations by both GYNs and PCPs had a greater impact on CRCS contemplation than those from a PCP or GYN alone.

CONCLUSION

In gynecology patients, having multiple providers recommend CRCS increases the likelihood of patients' intentions to undergo CRCS. However, CRCS compliance is primarily driven solely by PCP recommendations. Regardless, strategies must be in place to prompt gynecologists and nurse practitioners to discuss CRCS in eligible patients.

[Gynaecologists' attitudes and practices towards HPV vaccination: a quantitative-qualitative study in Rhône-Alpes]

OBJECTIVES

Acceptance of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine by targeted population will mainly depend on its acceptability among gynaecologists. We examined the perceptions, attitudes and practices of gynaecologists in relation to HPV vaccination 1 year after licensing.

POPULATION AND METHODS

From November 2007 to April 2008, a cross-sectional survey was carried among a representative 10% sample of gynaecologists in the French Rhône-Alpes region. Both quantitative (self-administered questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches were used.

RESULTS

Among the 52 respondents, 90.4% of gynaecologists reported a favourable opinion about HPV vaccination, 5.8% were uncertain and 1.9% was opposed (one did not answer). The main justification for a favourable opinion related to the public health effects of the HPV vaccination (cited by 31.9% of those favouring vaccination). The main justification for an uncertain or opposed opinion was the too recent introduction of the vaccine (cited by 100%). During the month preceding the survey, 40.4% had provided HPV vaccination, mainly in 15-23 years old girls (38.5%). The major difficulties in providing HPV vaccination were questions asked by patients (cited by 44.2% of the respondents) and the targeted age of 14 years (13.5%). A total of 87.5% of respondents reported to have discussed with 14-year-old vaccinated girls of Pap-smear and 12.5% of STI prevention.

CONCLUSION

One year after HPV vaccine licensing, gynaecologists of Rhône-Alpes region had a favourable opinion about it, despite some difficulties. Little information about STI prevention to vaccinated girls was reported opposite to information about Pap-smear.

Optimizing knowledge of antiviral medications for prophylaxis and treatment of influenza during pregnancy

Pregnant women are particularly susceptible to influenza-related morbidity and mortality and have historically been over-represented among patients with influenza, requiring hospitalization and intensive care unit admission. This has been observed during both nonpandemic and pandemic influenza seasons. During the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009-2010, pregnant women again had an increased likelihood of hospital or intensive care unit admission, and many deaths were documented. One identified risk factor for more severe disease was a delay in the initiation of antiviral medications. Vaccination is currently the most effective method for preventing severe influenza and its sequelae, and antiviral medications are used as an important adjunct to vaccination. Knowledge among pregnant women regarding influenza vaccine recommendations is poor, but by improving knowledge and understanding, vaccine rates can be increased. Although there are no published data examining knowledge regarding antiviral medications, one can hypothesize that knowledge is similarly low. In the current era, the appropriate use of vaccination and antiviral medications is the best defense against complications of influenza among pregnant women, and optimizing knowledge about these strategies among providers and patients alike is of paramount importance.

Attitudes and practices of obstetrician-gynecologists regarding influenza vaccination in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) regarding vaccination of pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

METHODS

From February to July 2010, a self-administered mail survey was conducted among a random sample of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) members involved in obstetric care. To assess predictors of routinely offering influenza vaccination, adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from survey data.

RESULTS

Among 3,096 survey recipients, 1,310 (42.3%) responded to the survey, of whom 873 were eligible for participation. The majority of ob-gyns reported routinely offering both seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients (77.6% and 85.6%, respectively) during the 2009-2010 season; 21.1% and 13.3% referred patients to other specialists. Reported reasons for not offering vaccination included inadequate reimbursement, storage limitations, or belief that vaccine should be administered by another provider. Seasonal and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination during the first trimester was not recommended by 10.6% and 9.6% of ob-gyns, respectively. Predictors of routinely offering 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine included: considering primary care and preventive medicine a very important part of practice (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.2, CI 1.01-1.4); observing serious conditions attributed to influenza-like illness (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.1, CI 1.02-1.1); personally receiving 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.2, CI 1.1-1.4); and practicing in multispecialty group (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.1, CI 1.1-1.2). Physicians in solo practice were less likely to routinely offer influenza vaccine (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9).

CONCLUSION

Although most ob-gyns routinely offered influenza vaccination to pregnant patients, vaccination coverage rates may be improved by addressing logistic and financial challenges of vaccine providers.

Achieving high coverage of H1N1 influenza vaccine in an ethnically diverse obstetric population: success of a multifaceted approach

Objective. To report on a multifaceted approach to increase uptake of the H1N1 vaccine in our ethnically diverse obstetrical population. Methods. A review of our obstetric clinic vaccine registry and the approaches used to increase vaccine uptake. We created a real-time vaccine registry, educated patients in their own language via educational videos and use of cultural case workers, facilitated patient appointments and transportation, educated staff, and used other interventions to enhance immunization uptake. Results. Within the first month of H1N1 availability, we vaccinated 120 of our total 157 obstetrics patients. Our overall coverage rate was 76% (number vaccinated/total number eligible.) Of the enrolled patients, the vaccine acceptance rates were similar in our English (59 (78%) of 76) versus non-English (59 (75%) of 79) speaking patients. Conclusions. High vaccine coverage is possible in an ethnically diverse, highly immigrant obstetrics population.

Preparing for influenza after 2009 H1N1: special considerations for pregnant women and newborns

Pregnant women and their newborn infants are at increased risk for influenza-associated complications, based on data from seasonal influenza and influenza pandemics. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed public health recommendations for these populations in response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. A review of these recommendations and information that was collected during the pandemic is needed to prepare for future influenza seasons and pandemics. The CDC convened a meeting entitled "Pandemic Influenza Revisited: Special Considerations for Pregnant Women and Newborns" on August 12-13, 2010, to gain input from experts and key partners on 4 main topics: antiviral prophylaxis and therapy, vaccine use, intrapartum/newborn (including infection control) issues, and nonpharmaceutical interventions and health care planning. Challenges to communicating recommendations regarding influenza to pregnant women and their health care providers were also discussed. After careful consideration of the available information and individual expert input, the CDC updated its recommendations for these populations for future influenza seasons and pandemics.

Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants

We sought to determine whether maternal vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a reduced risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations in infants <6 months old. Active population-based, laboratory-confirmed influenza surveillance was conducted in children hospitalized with fever and/or respiratory symptoms in 3 US counties from November through April during the 2002 through 2009 influenza seasons. The exposure, influenza vaccination during pregnancy, and the outcome, positive/negative influenza testing among their hospitalized infants, were compared using logistic regression analyses. Among 1510 hospitalized infants <6 months old, 151 (10%) had laboratory-confirmed influenza and 294 (19%) mothers reported receiving influenza vaccine during pregnancy. Eighteen (12%) mothers of influenza-positive infants and 276 (20%) mothers of influenza-negative infants were vaccinated (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.88 and adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.91). Infants of vaccinated mothers were 45-48% less likely to have influenza hospitalizations than infants of unvaccinated mothers. Our results support the current influenza vaccination recommendation for pregnant women.

Missed opportunities in cardiovascular disease prevention?: low rates of hypertension recognition for women at medicine and obstetrics-gynecology clinics

Younger women use both internal medicine and obstetrics-gynecology (OBGYN) clinics as primary sources of health care. However, the role of OBGYN clinics in cardiovascular disease prevention is largely unexplored. The objective of this study was to examine rates of hypertension recognition in women<50 years of age who presented with elevated blood pressures in family practice and internal medicine (medicine) OBGYN clinics and to compare these rates across clinic type. The study's population consisted of 34 627 nonpregnant women ages 18 to 49 years with new-onset hypertension (defined as 2 consecutive visits with elevated blood pressures of systolic blood pressure≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure≥90 mm Hg with no previous hypertension history) from 2002 to 2006. Multivariate logistic regressions predicting the clinical recognition of hypertension (a recorded diagnosis of hypertension and/or an antihypertensive prescription by any provider within 1 year of the second elevated blood pressure) assessed the association between hypertension recognition and the clinic where the second elevated blood pressure was recorded. Analysis showed that hypertension was recognized in <33% of women with new-onset hypertension. Women whose second consecutive elevated blood pressure was recorded in OBGYN clinics were less likely to be recognized as having hypertension within 12 months by any provider compared with women whose second consecutive elevated blood pressure was recorded in a medicine clinic (odds ratio: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.48 to 0.54]). This study suggests that further attention be paid to identifying and treating cardiovascular disease risk factors in women<50 years of age presenting in both medicine and OBGYN clinics and that improved coordination across care settings has the potential to improve cardiovascular disease prevention in young women.

Vaccine eligibility and acceptance among ambulatory obstetric and gynecologic patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess vaccine eligibility and factors associated with vaccine acceptance among ambulatory obstetric and gynecologic patients.

METHODS

An anonymous office-based survey was administered to women seeking ambulatory obstetric and gynecologic care at a large women's hospital from December 2007 to July 2008. Information collected included: demographics, medical and vaccination history, interest in receiving vaccines and attitudes towards vaccine providers. Vaccine eligibility was based on age and/or self-reported risk factors in accord with the 2007-2008 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adult immunization schedule. Vaccine eligibility was examined using descriptive statistics, and demographic characteristics were compared using chi-squared analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess factors associated with participants' willingness to accept vaccines from their obstetrician-gynecologist.

RESULTS

A total of 1441 women completed the survey. The majority of participants (87%) would accept vaccines if recommended by their obstetrician-gynecologist. The primary factors associated with vaccine acceptance were having less than a high school education, being privately insured, currently being pregnant, reporting a history of vaccinations and previously receiving vaccinations from an obstetrician-gynecologist. A significant portion of participants were eligible for the hepatitis B, influenza and HPV vaccines (≥ 50% for each). The type of vaccine did not influence willingness to accept vaccines from an obstetrician-gynecologist.

CONCLUSION

A majority of women appear eligible for, and will accept, vaccinations regardless of specific vaccine, if recommended by their obstetrician-gynecologist. These findings justify ongoing efforts to expand immunization services offered by obstetrician-gynecologists.

Colorectal cancer screening practices among obstetrician/gynecologists and nurse practitioners

OBJECTIVE

Obstetrician/gynecologists (Ob/Gyn) and nurse practitioners (NP) are essential providers of primary and preventive care for their female patients. Therefore, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening should be part of their routine preventive practices. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the CRC screening practices of these providers.

METHODS

A self-administered survey was mailed to a national sample of 1130 Ob/Gyns and NPs to assess providers' demographics, current CRC screening practices, and familiarity with CRC guidelines.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-six providers (29.7%) returned our survey (54% Ob/Gyns and 46% NPs). Three fourths of providers routinely performed screening for CRC, compared with 95% for breast and cervical cancer. Routine CRC screening was more common among Ob/Gyns (87.2%) than NPs (61.7%) (p < 0.001). Slightly over half of providers correctly identified the recommended age to begin CRC screening for the average-risk patient, with no significant difference between provider types. Overall, Ob/Gyns scored higher than NPs on a series of questions assessing CRC screening (p < 0.03). Several provider factors were found to be significantly associated with screening practices, including practicing >10 years (p < 0.01), practicing in a multispecialty group (2.62 times more likely), and having an older patient population (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ob/Gyns and NPs underuse CRC screening compared with breast and cervical cancer screening and lack knowledge about appropriate use of CRC screening modalities. Opportunities to further educate Ob/Gyns and NPs should be sought to improve compliance with current CRC screening guidelines.

Obstetrician-gynecologists' practices and perceived knowledge regarding immunization

BACKGROUND

Obstetrician-gynecologists can play a key role in providing appropriate vaccinations to women of childbearing age.

PURPOSE

This study investigated immunization knowledge and practices, and opinions concerning potential barriers to immunization, among obstetrician-gynecologists.

METHODS

In 2007, surveys were sent to Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network members, a representative sample of practicing Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 394 responded (51.2%). Data analysis was completed in 2008.

RESULTS

Most responding obstetrician-gynecologists disagreed that "routine screening for vaccine-preventable diseases falls outside of the routine practice of an ob/gyn." A majority (78.7%) stock and administer at least some vaccines. Among those who stock vaccines, 91.0% stock the human papillomavirus vaccine, and 66.8% stock the influenza vaccine. All other vaccines were stocked by <30% of practices that stock vaccines. A majority of physicians agreed that financial factors (e.g., inadequate reimbursement) were barriers to vaccine administration. Most were aware that the influenza (89.8%); hepatitis B (64.0%); and tetanus, diptheria, pertussis (58.6%) vaccines are safe to administer during pregnancy, and that the measles, mumps, rubella (97.5%); and varicella (92.9%) vaccines are not. Most (84.5%) were in concordance with recommendations that all pregnant women should receive the influenza vaccine. A majority believed their immunization training was less than adequate and believed their practice would benefit from continuing medical education courses.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunization is an important part of women's health care and has been, at least partially, incorporated into obstetrician-gynecologist practice. Financial burdens and knowledge regarding vaccine recommendations remain barriers to vaccine administration. Additional training and professional information may benefit obstetric-gynecologic practice.

Pre-travel vaccination and medical prophylaxis in the pregnant traveler

BACKGROUND

Practitioners are often fearful of giving vaccinations and prophylactic medications to pregnant travelers. And yet pregnancy is often a time of heightened danger from travel-related infections and illnesses.

METHOD

Literature search and communication with researchers.

RESULTS

With a few exceptions, there is little systematic research regarding the use of prophylactic medications and vaccines during pregnancy. Case reports and small studies do, however, indicate an increased risk in pregnancy from many of the preventable illnesses, and there is some data to support the use of preventive measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present some non-medical interventions that may be used to limit exposure to a number of disease processes. They then review the available information regarding the safety and efficacy of routine and travel-related vaccines as well as prophylactic medications for malaria, diarrhea, motion sickness and altitude sickness. When there are no obstetrical or medical contraindications, travel-related illness can usually be safely prevented during pregnancy in much the same ways as in the non-pregnant state.

The pregnant wilderness traveler

BACKGROUND

Travel during pregnancy, especially, when it involves potentially hazardous activities in remote areas, often raises serious concerns regarding the health and safety risks involved.

METHOD

The authors have researched the available medical literature to identify these risks and present the current recommendations for their prevention and treatment.

RESULTS

Topics addressed include some political and social issues, insurance, basic comfort measures, complications of pregnancy, infectious diseases, environmental exposures, and trauma. Preventive measures include pre-travel evaluation and teaching, possible modifications of the itinerary, vaccinations and medications. Also briefly discussed are the handling of obstetrical emergencies in the field and medical evacuation of the pregnant patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conclude that many trips of this nature can be made relatively safe for the pregnant traveler, but she may need to accept some precautions and modifications of the itinerary that might not otherwise be necessary.

Tetanus and diphtheria immunity among females in the United States: are recommendations being followed?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine prevalence and factors associated with tetanus and diphtheria immunity among women in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Sera from 9411 female participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were tested for diphtheria and tetanus antitoxin. Interview information for adult women was analyzed to examine associations with immunity.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of the female subjects who were > or =6 years old were positive for diphtheria, and 64% of the female subjects for tetanus anti-toxin. Among women > or =20 years old, only 41% of the women were protected against both antigens. Older age, birth outside the United States, and less education was associated with lower immunity. Markers for contact with the health care system were not related to higher immunity.

CONCLUSION

More than one half of US women > or =20 years old who were tested were not protected fully against diphtheria and tetanus. All physicians, including obstetricians and gynecologists who may be the sole medical providers for women, should be familiar with the current Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations regarding tetanus and diphtheria toxoid booster vaccines.

New recommendations for influenza vaccination for children and pregnant women

This year the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has updated recommendations for use of influenza vaccine. Previously, use of influenza vaccine focused primarily on the elderly as well as younger persons with underlying conditions that place them at high risk for severe disease and complications from influenza infection. The new recommendations also emphasize the benefits of influenza vaccination for young, healthy children who are at high risk for hospitalization with influenza infection. These changes are the result of recent reports demonstrating that otherwise healthy young children aged 6 to 24 months are hospitalized for influenza and its complications at rates comparable to those for whom influenza vaccination is already recommended, including the elderly.

The obstetrician-gynecologist's role in adult immunization

Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) account for significant morbidities and mortalities in the United States on an annual basis. Despite generally successful childhood vaccine programs, adults remain underimmunized against a variety of common VPDs. Lack of both physician and patient awareness contribute to this deficiency. All primary care providers, including obstetrician-gynecologists, must address this need in their office practices. Clear and authoritative adult vaccine recommendations are established and easily accessible by the clinician. Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to vaccine administration. In fact, certain vaccines are specifically indicated during pregnancy in the interest of the mother and her unborn child. Women frequently identify gynecologists as their sole providers of care, further emphasizing the need for attention to this health maintenance activity. New vaccine initiatives, in particular those focused on early newborn infectious conditions, sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer prevention, will likely place the obstetrician-gynecologist at the forefront of this important clinical issue.