Key stakeholder perspectives on challenges and opportunities for rural HPV vaccination in North and South Carolina

The Impact of Digital Inequities on Oropharyngeal Cancer Disparities in the United States

Objective

To assess associations of digital inequity with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) prognostic and care outcomes in the United States while adjusting for traditional social determinants/drivers of health (SDoH).

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

United States.

Methods

In total, 70,604 patients from 2008 to 2017 were assessed for regression trends in long-term follow-up period, survival, prognosis, and treatment across increasing overall digital inequity, as measured by the Digital Inequity Index (DII). DII is based on 17 census-tract level variables derived from the American Community Survey and Federal Communications Commission. Variables were categorized as infrastructure-access (ie, digital-related variables) or sociodemographic (ie, education, income, and disability status) and weighted-averaged into a composite score.

Results

With increasing DII, decreases in length of follow-up (10.22%, 32.9-29.5 months; P < .001) and survival (8.93%, 19-17.3 months; P < .001) were observed. Affordability of internet access displayed the largest influence, followed by device access and internet-service availability. Compared to OPC patients with low digital inequity, high digital inequity was associated with increased odds of diagnosing more than one malignant tumor (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; P = .012) and advanced staging (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; P = .034), while having decreased odds of receiving indicated chemotherapy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P < .001), radiation therapy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P < .001), or primary surgery (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; P < .001).

Conclusion

Digital inequities contribute to detrimental trends in OPC patient care and prognosis in the United States. These findings can inform strategic discourse targeted against the most pertinent disparities in the modern-day environment.

Messaging Preferences about the COVID-19 Vaccine among Adults in Eastern North Carolina

Racially and ethnically diverse populations and individuals residing in rural areas were disproportionally impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, and Eastern North Carolina (ENC) is one region where such impacts were apparent. To understand at-risk individuals' perceptions and hesitancy to COVID-19 vaccines and the preferred means of receiving vaccination-related messages, we conducted four qualitative focus groups (N = 40) with diverse rural ENC residents. The analysis of the focus group transcripts revealed five themes: (1) reasons people trusted the COVID-19 vaccines, (2) reasons people mistrusted the COVID-19 vaccines, (3) the best means to deliver messages regarding COVID-19 vaccination, (4) the individuals trusted most to deliver such messages, and (5) the decisions people made regarding whether to get vaccinated and how that was connected to God. By incorporating participant perspectives and preferences in receiving messaging into campaigns, there is a potential for greater vaccine uptake.

Demographic, clinical, and social characteristics of anal cancer among patients stratified by age (<50 and ≥50 years) in Alabama between 2012 and 2018

BACKGROUND

Anal cancer is increasing globally, with a high number of new cases occurring in highly developed countries, including the U.S. The incidence of anal cancer is higher among people living with HIV (PLHIV), and the U.S. South continues to see higher HIV incidence rates and lagging HPV vaccination rates. We aimed to identify factors associated with early onset anal cancer in Alabama which may help explain cancer disparities in the South.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, we examined demographic, clinical, and social characteristics among anal cancer patients stratified by diagnosis age (<50 and ≥50 years) in the Alabama cancer registry between 2012 and 2018. We used Wilcoxon rank sums and Pearson chi-square tests to assess associations between age at diagnosis, demographic (i.e., sex, race, marital status), clinical (i.e., BMI, HIV infection, site, stage, and histological type), and social (i.e. social vulnerability) characteristics, and multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of early onset cancer.

RESULTS

Among 519 patients with anal cancer in Alabama, 92 (17.7 %) were diagnosed at <50 years. The majority of patients were female (66.5 %) and White (83.4 %). Male sex, Black race, and HIV infection were associated with younger age at diagnosis. Black patients had a 4-fold increased odds of early onset anal cancer compared to White patients (AOR=4.39, CI=1.54-12.49). Black patients disproportionately lived in areas with higher social vulnerability. About 42 % of patients in areas with the highest social vulnerability were diagnosed with stage 3 or 4 cancer. About 8 % of cases were among people aged 35-44 years, which is close to double the proportion of anal cancer cases in this age group in the U.S. (4.7 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who are Black, male, and PLHIV may be at higher risk of early onset anal cancer compared to other populations in the South.

Missed opportunities for human papillomavirus vaccination using Iowa's Immunization Registry Information System

PURPOSE

Adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates continue to remain lower than other adolescent vaccines, both nationwide and in Iowa. This study examined predictors of missed opportunities for first-dose HPV vaccine administrations in Iowa in order to conduct more targeted outreach and improve adolescent HPV vaccine uptake.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to identify predictors of missed opportunities for first-dose HPV vaccination in Iowa adolescents using Iowa's Immunization Registry Information System. The study population included 154,905 adolescents aged 11-15 years between 2019 and 2022. Missed opportunity for first-dose HPV vaccination was defined as a vaccination encounter where an adolescent received a Tdap and/or MenACWY vaccine but did not receive the first-dose HPV vaccine during the same encounter.

FINDINGS

Over a third of the study population experienced a missed opportunity for HPV vaccination between 2019 and 2022. Missed opportunity for vaccination was most common among individuals living in a rural county (aOR = 1.36), underinsured adolescents (aOR = 1.74), males (aOR = 1.12), teens 13-15 years of age (aOR = 1.76), and White race and non-Hispanic ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

This study builds on previously reported predictors of missed opportunity for HPV vaccination in adolescents. Increased understanding of provider needs and barriers to administering HPV vaccination and further analysis of how the Vaccines for Children Program can play a role in HPV vaccination uptake is necessary to improve HPV vaccination rates among adolescents in Iowa and more specifically in rural communities.

Demographic Influences on Adult HPV Vaccination: Results from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Tennessee

HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection in the U.S., with more than 80% of all Americans contracting it by age 45. Effective vaccines for HPV exist and were recently approved for adults aged 27-45 years, though uptake remains low in all age groups, particularly in Tennessee where 1089 cancers were attributed to HPV in 2020. Between 29 June and 17 August 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional survey to gain insights about the barriers and facilitators of HPV in 2011 adults aged 18 to 45 years in Tennessee. We developed our survey based on previous instruments to understand predictors of HPV vaccination in adults. Using descriptive statistics and bivariate and logistic regression analyses, we found higher vaccination rates in females, participants aged 18-38 years, participants with a high school education or higher, Hispanic or Latine individuals, and participants identifying as moderate or liberal. These insights highlight the need for public health interventions that consider demographic differences to successfully increase vaccination rates and reduce HPV-associated cancer risk.

Facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination: a qualitative study in rural Georgia

INTRODUCTION

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination protects against HPV-associated cancers and genital warts. Healthy People 2030 goal for HPV vaccine uptake is 80%, but as of 2021, only 58.5% of adolescents are up to date in Georgia. The purpose of the study is to assess the attitudes, vaccine practices, facilitators, and barriers to receiving the HPV vaccine in southwest Georgia.

METHODS

We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews in the United States from May 2020-Feburary 2022 with three different audiences (young adults, parents, and providers and public health professionals) guided by the P3 (patient-, provider-, practice-levels) Model. The audiences were recruited by multiple methods including fliers, a community advisory board, Facebook ads, phone calls or emails to schools and health systems, and snowball sampling. Young adults and parents were interviewed to assess their perceived benefits, barriers, and susceptibility of the HPV vaccine. Providers and public health professionals were interviewed about facilitators and barriers of patients receiving the HPV vaccine in their communities. We used deductive coding approach using a structured codebook, two coders, analyses in MAXQDA, and matrices.

RESULTS

Out of the 40 interviews: 10 young adults, 20 parents, and 10 providers and public health professionals were interviewed. Emerging facilitator themes to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine included existing knowledge (patient level) and community outreach, providers' approach to the HPV vaccine recommendations and use of educational materials in addition to counseling parents or young adults (provider level) and immunization reminders (practice level). Barrier themes were lack of knowledge around HPV and the HPV vaccine (patient level), need for strong provider recommendation and discussing the vaccine with patients (provider level), and limited patient reminders and health education information around HPV vaccination (practice level). Related to socio-ecology, the lack of transportation and culture of limited discussion about vaccination in rural communities and the lack of policies facilitating the uptake of the HPV vaccine (e.g., school mandates) were described as challenges.

CONCLUSION

These interviews revealed key themes around education, knowledge, importance of immunization reminders, and approaches to increasing the HPV vaccination in rural Georgia. This data can inform future interventions across all levels (patient, provider, practice, policy, etc.) to increase HPV vaccination rates in rural communities.

Facilitators and barriers of HPV vaccination: a qualitative study in rural Georgia

Introduction

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination protects against HPV-associated cancers and genital warts. Healthy People 2030 goal for HPV vaccine uptake is 80%, but as of 2021, only 58.5% of adolescents are up to date in Georgia. The purpose of the study is to assess the attitudes, vaccine practices, facilitators, and barriers to receiving the HPV vaccine in southwest Georgia.

Methods

We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with three different audiences (young adults, parents, and providers and public health professionals) guided by the P3 (patient-, provider-, practice-levels) model and used deductive coding approach. Young adults and parents were interviewed to assess their perceived benefits, barriers, and susceptibility of the HPV vaccine. Providers and public health professionals were interviewed about facilitators and barriers of patients receiving the HPV vaccine in their communities.

Results

Out of the 40 interviews: 10 young adults, 20 parents, and 10 providers and public health professionals were interviewed. Emerging facilitator themes to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine included existing knowledge (patient level), providers' approach to the HPV vaccine recommendations (provider level) and immunization reminders (practice level). Barrier themes were lack of knowledge around HPV and the HPV vaccine (patient level), need for strong provider recommendation and discussing the vaccine with patients (provider level), and limited patient reminders and information (practice level).

Conclusions

These interviews revealed key themes around education, knowledge, importance of immunization reminders, and approaches to increasing the HPV vaccination in rural Georgia. This data can inform future interventions across all levels (patient, provider, practice, policy, etc.) to increase HPV vaccination rates in rural communities.

Boot Camp Translation using Community-Engaged messaging for adolescent Vaccination: A Cluster-Randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Routine vaccination coverage for adolescents living in the rural US is lower than adolescents living in urban areas. We sought to measure the effect of Boot Camp Translation (BCT), a community-based participatory intervention, on rural adolescent vaccination coverage.

METHODS

A cluster randomized controlled trial was performed September 2018-November 2021 involving 16 rural Colorado counties. Intervention county community members engaged in BCT to develop interventions to improve adolescent vaccination locally. Adolescent vaccination coverage was measured using the Colorado Immunization Information System.

RESULTS

For 11-12-year-olds, HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage was lower post- versus pre-intervention in the control and intervention groups. For 11-12-year-olds in the intervention group, there was no significant difference post- versus pre-intervention in the odds of HPV vaccine initiation (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [aROR] = 0.93, 95 %: 0.85-1.02, p = 0.10) or up-to-date HPV vaccination (aROR: 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.98-1.23, p = 0.11) compared with the control group. Among 11-12-year-olds, the decrease in the proportion vaccinated with MenACWY and Tdap in the intervention group was significantly greater than the control group. Among 13-17-year-olds, there were significant increases in HPV initiation, HPV up-to-date, MenACWY, and Tdap vaccination coverage from pre- to post-intervention for both groups, with no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

11-12-year-old vaccination coverage decreased slightly from pre- to post-intervention while 13-17-year-old vaccination coverage increased. We saw no effect from the BCT intervention. Our findings about the effectiveness of BCT for improving vaccine uptake may not be generalizable because the study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03955757.

Assessing Barriers to Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in At-Risk Rural Communities of Western North Carolina, United States

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among adolescents in rural, western North Carolina (NC) remains suboptimal. Data are needed to understand the barriers to HPV vaccination in these communities. We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study of parental attitudes and provider practices regarding HPV vaccination in rural western NC counties with lower HPV vaccination rates. Eight health department clinics were enrolled in the study. Further, 29 provider and 32 parent surveys were analyzed along with environmental scans. Median provider comfort regarding knowledge of HPV-associated diseases was 85% (IQR = 75-95), on a scale of 0-100% (100% representing complete comfort). Median parental comfort level regarding knowledge of HPV-associated diseases and the HPV vaccine was 75% (IQR = 50-89) and 75% (IQR = 49-96), respectively. Less than 25% of parents rated the HPV vaccine as 'extremely effective' against genital (16.7%) and anal cancers (17.9%). Parents were more likely to rate the vaccine as 'extremely effective' to 'very effective' if their child was female. There was no significant difference between parental- and provider-reported comfort with knowledge about HPV-associated diseases (p = 0.0725) and the HPV vaccine (p = 0.167). This study identified multiple opportunities to increase HPV vaccine coverage among unvaccinated adolescents at parental, provider, and clinic levels. Health education of rural NC residents and providers in public health settings may identify future interventions to increase HPV vaccine uptake.

Lessons Learned from All for Them: Best Practices for a Cross-Collaboration Approach to HPV Vaccination in Public Schools

The Community Preventive Services Task Force endorses vaccination programs in schools to increase access to vaccinations. However, implementing a school-based approach requires substantial coordination, planning, and resources. All for Them (AFT) is a multilevel, multicomponent approach to increase HPV vaccination among adolescents attending public schools in medically underserved areas in Texas. AFT comprised a social marketing campaign, school-based vaccination clinics, and school nurse continuing education. Process evaluation metrics and key informant interviews to understand experiences with AFT program implementation informed lessons learned. Lessons emerged in six domains: strong champion, school-level support, tailored and cost-effective marketing approaches, mobile provider collaboration, community presence, and crisis management. Strong support at district and school levels is vital for gaining principal and school nurse buy-in. Social marketing strategies are integral to program implementation and should be adjusted to maximize their effectiveness in motivating parents to vaccinate children against HPV, which also can be achieved through increased community presence of the project team. Preparing contingency plans and flexibility within the program can facilitate appropriate responses to provider restrictions in mobile clinics or in the event of unforeseen crises. These important lessons can offer useful guidelines for the development of prospective school-based vaccination programs.

Perceived Barriers and Use of Evidence-Based Practices for Adolescent HPV Vaccination among East Texas Providers

Adolescents living in rural areas are less likely to be up to date on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer. We administered a telephone survey to 27 clinics in rural East Texas to assess perceived barriers to HPV vaccination and current use of evidence-based interventions to promote HPV vaccination. Perceived barriers were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale and clinical implementation of evidence-based practices was determined. Findings are reported using descriptive statistics. The most commonly reported barriers were missed vaccination opportunities due to the pandemic (66.7%), followed by vaccine hesitancy due to the pandemic (44.4%) and due to the HPV vaccine specifically (33.3%). Fewer than a third of clinics reported using the evidence-based strategies of use of a “refusal to vaccinate” form (29.6%), having an identified HPV vaccine champion (29.6%), and recommending the HPV vaccine at age 9 (22.2%). While many clinics surveyed currently implement evidence-based practices to promote HPV vaccination, there is a need and desire for additional HPV vaccination interventions in East Texas clinics.

Overcoming barriers to HPV vaccination in rural Vermont through a multicomponent peer-based approach

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes almost all cervical cancers and many cancers of the anus, vagina, vulva, penis, and oropharynx. The HPV vaccine provides protection to all adolescents from a broad spectrum of cancers, yet HPV vaccination rates remain lower than those of other routine vaccines. Developing effective HPV vaccine interventions is particularly important in rural areas, whose residents have lower rates of HPV vaccination and higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality; however, interventional research in these populations is relatively limited. Furthermore, though rural areas are heterogeneous in many regards, few interventions engage stakeholders to develop community-specific solutions to overcome obstacles associated with HPV vaccination. Based on a review of existing literature, we recommend a multicomponent peer-based approach that includes school-based vaccination and awareness, parental involvement, and stakeholder engagement to increase HPV vaccination in rural areas, and we provide an example of such an intervention in rural Vermont.