Vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices among health care providers in New York State

Community-wide vaccine uptake remains sub-optimal. Healthcare provider (HCP) vaccine recommendations influence patient vaccination; however, provider vaccine recommendation behavior is highly influenced by one's own vaccine attitudes and/or knowledge. We aim to describe vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and recommendation practices (KAP) among New York State HCPs. A survey to assess HCP KAP was developed and electronically distributed to NYS members of national medical organizations via their local chapter administrators. Descriptive statistical methods were used to define provider KAP. A total of 864 surveys were included, 500 (60%) and 336 (40%) primary and specialty care providers, respectively. Eighty-one percent (402/499) of primary care providers (PCPs) report encountering vaccine hesitant patients daily or weekly. Of the 500 PCPs who responded, only 204 (41%) stated strong agreement with confidence in their communications with vaccine hesitant patients. HCPs who correctly answered all four knowledge questions were more likely to self-report routine recommendations of standard vaccines to all patients when compared to those who correctly answered fewer questions (489/588 (83%) vs 135/241 (56%), p < .05). HCPs were more likely to routinely recommend standard vaccines to all patients if they also report initiating vaccine discussion (476/485 (98%) vs 148/344 (43%), p < .05) and reviewing and recommending vaccinations at each encounter (315/320 (98%) vs 308/508 (61%), p < .05). Vaccine hesitancy exists across healthcare specialties and provider roles. Focused interventions should include reaching all HCPs to promote vaccinations for disease prevention, tailoring messages to reduce HCP vaccine misperceptions, and increasing awareness of evidence-based office strategies known to facilitate immunizations.

National and regional differences in meningococcal vaccine recommendations for individuals at an increased risk of meningococcal disease

INTRODUCTION

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is a severe, life-threatening condition caused by infection with Neisseria meningitidis. Currently available vaccines offer protection against the five most common meningococcal disease-causing serogroups and include monovalent and quadrivalent conjugate vaccines (MenA, MenC, MenACWY vaccines) and outer membrane vesicle- and/or recombinant protein-based vaccines (MenB vaccines).

AREAS COVERED

Country and regional immunization programs target populations susceptible to IMD and typically emphasize the highest-risk age groups (i.e., infants, adolescents/young adults, and the elderly); however, additional groups are also considered at an elevated risk and are the focus of the current review. Specific increased-risk groups include individuals with underlying immunocompromising medical conditions, university/college students, Indigenous people, laboratory workers, military personnel, men who have sex with men, and travelers to areas with hyperendemic IMD. This review compares established meningococcal vaccination recommendations for these vulnerable groups in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, and Turkey.

EXPERT OPINION

Recommendations should be standardized to cover all groups at increased risk of IMD.

Immunogenicity and safety of MenACWY-TT, a quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine recently licensed in the United States for individuals ≥2 years of age

Vaccination offers the best way to prevent invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). As demonstrated in countries with national immunization programs (NIPs) against IMD, meningococcal conjugate vaccines have contributed to significant declines in incidence. Since some meningococcal vaccines are associated with modest immunogenicity in infants, possible immunological interference upon concomitant administration with some pediatric vaccines, and administration errors resulting from improper reconstitution, opportunities for improvement exist. A quadrivalent conjugate vaccine, MenQuadfi® (Meningococcal [Serogroups A, C, Y, and W] Conjugate Vaccine; Sanofi, Swiftwater, Pennsylvania), was approved in 2020 for the prevention of IMD caused by meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in individuals ≥2 years of age in the United States. Five pivotal studies and one ancillary study supported approval in the United States; clinical trials in infants are ongoing. Data on the immunogenicity and safety of this vaccine are presented, and its potential value in clinical practice is discussed.

Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients

Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.

Vaccine hesitancy in health-care providers in Western countries: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a leading cause of suboptimal vaccine uptake rates worldwide. The interaction between patients and health-care providers (HCPs) is the keystone in addressing VH. However, significant proportions of HCPs, including those who administer vaccines, are personally and professionally vaccine-hesitant.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review sought to characterize the nature, extent, correlates, and consequences of VH among HCPs. We included 39 quantitative and qualitative studies conducted in Western countries, published since 2015, that assessed VH among HCPs in general, for several vaccines. Studies were reviewed using the WHO 3Cs model - (lack of) confidence, complacency, and (lack of) convenience.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the lack of validated tools and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to measure VH among HCPs, this review confirms its presence in this population, at frequencies that vary by country, profession type, setting, and level of medical education. Lack of knowledge and mistrust in health authorities/pharmaceutical industry/experts were among its principal drivers. Improving the content about vaccination in HCPs' training programs, facilitating access to reliable information for use during consultations, and developing and validating instruments to measure HCPs' VH and its determinants are key to addressing VH among HCPs.

Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication

Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses confirm that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of influenza illness by between about 40% and 60% in seasons when circulating influenza stains are well matched to vaccine strains. Influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) estimates, however, are often discordant and a source of confusion for decision makers. IVE assessments are increasingly publicized and are often used by policy makers to make decisions about the value of seasonal influenza vaccination. But there is limited guidance on how IVE should be interpreted or used to inform policy. There are several limitations to the use of IVE for decision‐making: (a) IVE studies have methodological issues that often complicate the interpretation of their value; and (b) the full impact of vaccination will almost always be greater than the impact assessed by a point estimate of IVE in specific populations or settings. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of study methodologies and the fundamental limitations of IVE estimates is important for the accuracy of interpretations and support of policy makers’ decisions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of issues that need to be considered when interpreting IVE and determining the full benefits of influenza vaccination. We propose that published IVE values should be assessed using an evaluative framework that includes influenza‐specific outcomes, types of VE study design, and confounders, among other factors. Better interpretation of IVE will improve the broader assessment of the value of influenza vaccination and ultimately optimize the public health benefits in seasonal influenza vaccination.

Is patient insurance type related to physician recommendation, administration and referral for adult vaccination? A survey of US physicians

This study evaluated physician practices and perceived barriers for influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap), and zoster vaccination of adults in the United States (US), with emphasis on patients with Medicare versus commercial insurance. A cross-sectional internet-based survey of board-certified general/family practitioners and internists (N = 1,000) recruited from a national US physician panel was conducted in May 2017. For influenza, rates of physician recommendation (84% of Medicare patients, 82% of commercially-insured patients), administration (80% Medicare, 78% commercial), and referral (11% Medicare, 11% commercial) were similar regardless of insurance type. Tdap recommendation was higher for commercial compared to Medicare patients (59% vs. 54%, p < 0.001); while zoster recommendation was higher for Medicare patients than commercial (59% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). For Tdap and zoster, higher administration rates were reported in commercial patients (64% Tdap, 36% zoster) than Medicare (56% Tdap, 32% zoster), and referral rates were higher for Medicare patients (19% Tdap, 49% zoster) than commercial (14% Tdap, 42% zoster). Over 40% of physicians would be much more likely to administer Tdap and zoster vaccines if they were covered under Medicare Part B, with more physicians indicating financial barriers as “major” or “moderate” for Medicare than commercial patients. These differences may be related to financial barriers associated with adult vaccinations that are covered under Medicare Part D and involve patient out-of-pocket costs. Efforts to reduce financial barriers associated with adult vaccinations covered under Medicare Part D and to improve patient and physician knowledge could positively impact physician recommendation, administration, and referral for adult vaccination in the US.

Review of current typhoid fever vaccines, cross-protection against paratyphoid fever, and the European guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Typhoid and paratyphoid fever remain a global health problem, which - in non-endemic countries - are mainly seen in travelers, particularly in VFRs (visiting friends and relatives), with occasional local outbreaks occurring. A rise in anti-microbial resistance emphasizes the role of preventive measures, especially vaccinations against typhoid and paratyphoid fever for travelers visiting endemic countries. Areas covered: This state-of-the-art review recapitulates the epidemiology and mechanisms of disease of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, depicts the perspective of non-endemic countries and travelers (VFRs), and collectively presents current European recommendations for typhoid fever vaccination. We provide a brief overview of available (and developmental) vaccines in Europe, present current data on cross-protection to S. Paratyphi, and aim to provide a background for typhoid vaccine decision-making in travelers. Expert commentary: European recommendations are not harmonized. Experts must assess vaccination of travelers based on current country-specific recommendations. Travel health practitioners should be aware of the issues surrounding vaccination of travelers and be motivated to increase awareness of typhoid and paratyphoid fever risks.