Validation of remote anthropometric measurements in a rural randomized pediatric clinical trial in primary care settings

Rural children are more at risk for childhood obesity but may have difficulty participating in pediatric weight management clinical trials if in-person visits are required. Remote assessment of height and weight observed via videoconferencing may provide a solution by improving the accuracy of self-reported data. This study aims to validate a low-cost, scalable video-assisted protocol for remote height and weight measurements in children and caregivers. Families were provided with low-cost digital scales and tape measures and a standardized protocol for remote measurements. Thirty-three caregiver and child (6-11 years old) dyads completed remote (at home) height and weight measurements while being observed by research staff via videoconferencing, as well as in-person measurements with research staff. We compared the overall and absolute mean differences in child and caregiver weight, height, body mass index (BMI), and child BMI adjusted Z-score (BMIaz) between remote and in-person measurements using paired samples t-tests and one sample t-tests, respectively. Bland-Altman plots were used to estimate the limits of agreement (LOA) and assess systematic bias. Simple regression models were used to examine associations between measurement discrepancies and sociodemographic factors and number of days between measurements. Overall mean differences in child and caregiver weight, height, BMI, and child BMIaz were not significantly different between remote and in-person measurements. LOAs were - 2.1 and 1.7 kg for child weight, - 5.2 and 4.0 cm for child height, - 1.5 and 1.7 kg/m2 for child BMI, - 0.4 and 0.5 SD for child BMIaz, - 3.0 and 2.8 kg for caregiver weight, - 2.9 and 3.9 cm for caregiver height, and - 2.1 and 1.6 kg/m2 for caregiver BMI. Absolute mean differences were significantly different between the two approaches for all measurements. Child and caregiver age were each significantly associated with differences between remote and in-person caregiver height measurements; there were no significant associations with other measurement discrepancies. Remotely observed weight and height measurements using non-research grade equipment may be a feasible and valid approach for pediatric clinical trials in rural communities. However, researchers should carefully evaluate their measurement precision requirements and intervention effect size to determine whether remote height and weight measurements suit their studies.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04142034 (29/10/2019).

Improving pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake using an mHealth tool (MoVeUP): a randomized, controlled trial

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines demonstrate excellent effectiveness against infection, severe disease, and death. However, pediatric COVID-19 vaccination rates lag among individuals from rural and other medically underserved communities. The research objective of the current protocol is to determine the effectiveness of a vaccine communication mobile health (mHealth) application (app) on parental decisions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Methods: Custodial parents/caregivers with ≥1 child eligible for COVID-19 vaccination who have not yet received the vaccine will be randomized to download one of two mHealth apps. The intervention app will address logistical and motivational barriers to pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. Participants will receive eight weekly push notifications followed by two monthly push notifications (cues to action) regarding vaccinating their child. Through branching logic, users will access customized content based on their locality, degree of rurality-urbanicity, primary language (English/Spanish), race/ethnicity, and child's age to address COVID-19 vaccine knowledge and confidence gaps. The control app will provide push notifications and information on general pediatric health and infection prevention and mitigation strategies based on recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome is the proportion of children who complete COVID-19 vaccination series. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of children who receive ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine and changes in parent/caregiver scores from baseline to immediately post-intervention on the modified WHO SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy Scale adapted for the COVID-19 vaccine. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic inflicts disproportionate harm on individuals from underserved communities, including those in rural settings. Maximizing vaccine uptake in these communities will decrease infection rates, severe illness, and death. Given that most US families from these communities use smart phones, mHealth interventions hold the promise of broad uptake. Bundling multiple mHealth vaccine-uptake interventions into a single app may maximize the impact of deploying such a tool to increase COVID-19 vaccination. The new knowledge to be gained from this study will directly inform future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates across diverse settings and provide an evidentiary base for app-based vaccine communication tools that can be adapted to future vaccine-deployment efforts. Clinical Trials Registration: Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov Trial registration number: NCT05386355 Date of registration: May 23, 2022 URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05386355.

Access to Care for Children under five in Oklahoma: a Geographic Imputation Application

OBJECTIVE

Geographic access to primary care can be a barrier to receiving appropriate preventative services. Oklahoma has been identified as having relatively few primary care providers per capita to care for its population compared to the US. The goal of this analysis was to identify the areas in Oklahoma with significant concentrations of children under five, no pediatrician within reasonable driving distance, and whether other primary care providers are present.

METHODS

The 2016 American Community Survey was used to estimate the total population of children under five years of age for each Census Block Group in Oklahoma. Access was defined as a thirty-minute drive time radius computed around each child's imputed location. The National Provider Identifier database was used to identify and locate pediatricians, family medicine physicians, and mid-level providers in Oklahoma. Areas of high concentrations of children with no pediatrician access were identified and non-pediatrician provider locations were superimposed.

RESULTS

Of the estimated 265,818 children under five in Oklahoma, approximately 7% were outside of a thirty-minute drive from a pediatrician. These children are concentrated in northwestern and southeastern Oklahoma, with several smaller additional groupings. There are multiple non-pediatrician primary care providers operating in many of these areas.

CONCLUSION

There are areas in the state where a paucity of pediatricians and high concentrations of young children lend themselves to collaborations using technology and education to improve the care of children.

Evaluation of cefuroxime axetil and cefadroxil suspensions for treatment of pediatric skin infections

A randomized, single-blind, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cefuroxime axetil and cefadroxil suspensions for the treatment of skin or skin structure infections in 287 children. Each drug was given at a dosage of 30 mg/kg of body weight per day in two divided doses. Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes, or a combination of the two, were the primary pathogens isolated from infected skin lesions. A satisfactory bacteriological response (cure or presumed cure) was obtained in 97.1 and 94.3% of children in the cefuroxime axetil and cefadroxil groups, respectively (P greater than 0.05). Satisfactory clinical responses (cure or improvement) were more likely to occur in cefuroxime axetil recipients than in cefadroxil recipients (97.8 versus 90.3%; P less than 0.05). Both regimens were equally well tolerated, with adverse events occurring in 7.9 and 6.1% of cefuroxime axetil and cefadroxil recipients, respectively. There were more patients who refused to take cefuroxime axetil (7 of 189) than there were who refused to take cefadroxil (0 of 98), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.1). In this study, cefuroxime axetil was at least as effective as cefadroxil in resolving skin and skin structure infections in children.