Background Receiving a healthcare provider’s recommendation is a strong predictor of HPV vaccination, but little is known empirically about which types of recommendation are most influential. Thus, we sought to investigate the relationship between recommendation quality and HPV vaccination among U.S. adolescents. Methods In 2014, we conducted a national, online survey of 1,495 parents of 11- to 17-year-old adolescents. Parents reported whether providers endorsed HPV vaccination strongly, encouraged same-day vaccination, and discussed cancer prevention. Using an index of these quality indicators, we categorized parents as having received no, low-quality, or high-quality recommendations for HPV vaccination. Separate multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between recommendation quality and HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 dose), follow through (3 doses, among initiators), refusal, and delay. Results Almost half (48%) of parents reported no provider recommendation for HPV vaccination, while 16% received low-quality recommendations and 36% received high-quality recommendations. Compared to no recommendation, high-quality recommendations were associated with over nine times the odds of HPV vaccine initiation (23% vs. 74%, OR=9.31, 95% CI, 7.10–12.22) and over three times the odds of follow through (17% vs. 44%, OR=3.82, 95% CI, 2.39–6.11). Low-quality recommendations were more modestly associated with initiation (OR=4.13, 95% CI, 2.99–5.70), but not follow through. Parents who received high-versus low-quality recommendations less often reported HPV vaccine refusal or delay. Conclusions High-quality recommendations were strongly associated with HPV vaccination behavior, but only about one-third of parents received them. Interventions are needed to improve not only whether, but how providers recommend HPV vaccination for adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: Improving provider recommendations is critical to addressing low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage. Thus, we sought to determine the effectiveness of training providers to improve their recommendations using either presumptive "announcements" or participatory "conversations." METHODS:In 2015, we conducted a parallel-group randomized clinical trial with 30 pediatric and family medicine clinics in central North Carolina. We randomized clinics to receive no training (control), announcement training, or conversation training. Announcements are brief statements that assume parents are ready to vaccinate, whereas conversations engage parents in open-ended discussions. A physician led the 1-hour, in-clinic training. The North Carolina Immunization Registry provided data on the primary trial outcome: 6-month coverage change in HPV vaccine initiation (≥1 dose) for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years. RESULTS:The immunization registry attributed 17 173 adolescents aged 11 or 12 to the 29 clinics still open at 6-months posttraining. Six-month increases in HPV vaccination coverage were larger for patients in clinics that received announcement training versus those in control clinics (5.4% difference, 95% confidence interval: 1.1%-9.7%). Stratified analyses showed increases for both girls (4.6% difference) and boys (6.2% difference). Patients in clinics receiving conversation training did not differ from those in control clinics with respect to changes in HPV vaccination coverage. Neither training was effective for changing coverage for other vaccination outcomes or for adolescents aged 13 through 17 (n = 37 796). CONCLUSIONS:Training providers to use announcements resulted in a clinically meaningful increase in HPV vaccine initiation among young adolescents.

Background. Improving HPV vaccination coverage in the US will require healthcare providers to recommend the vaccine more effectively. To inform quality improvement efforts, we systematically reviewed studies of provider communication about HPV vaccination. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and POPLINE in August 2015 to identify studies of provider communication about HPV vaccination. Results. We identified 101 qualitative and quantitative studies. Providers less often recommended HPV vaccine if they were uncomfortable discussing sex, perceived parents as hesitant, or believed patients to be low risk. Patients less often received recommendations if they were younger, male, or from racial/ethnic minorities. Despite parents' preference for unambiguous recommendations, providers often sent mixed messages by failing to endorse HPV vaccine strongly, differentiating it from other vaccines, and presenting it as an "optional" vaccine that could be delayed. Conclusion. Interventions are needed to help providers deliver effective recommendations in the complex communication environment surrounding HPV vaccination.

Background Improving the quality of physicians’ recommendations for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is critical to addressing low coverage. Thus, we sought to describe HPV vaccine communication practices among primary care physicians. Methods Pediatricians and family physicians (n=776) completed our national online survey in 2014. We assessed the quality of their HPV vaccine recommendations on strength of endorsement (i.e., saying the vaccine is important), timeliness (recommending it by ages 11–12), consistency (recommending it routinely versus using a risk-based approach), and urgency (recommending same-day vaccination). Results A sizeable minority of physicians reported that they do not strongly endorse HPV vaccine (27%) or deliver timely recommendations for girls (26%) or boys (39%). Many physicians (59%) used a risk-based approach to recommending HPV vaccine, and only half (51%) usually recommended same-day vaccination. Overall recommendation quality was lower among physicians who were uncomfortable talking about HPV vaccine or who believed parents did not value it. Quality was higher among physicians who began discussions by saying the child was due for HPV vaccine versus giving information or eliciting questions. Conclusion Many physicians in our national sample reported recommending HPV vaccine inconsistently, behind schedule, or without urgency. These practices likely contribute to under-immunization among adolescents, and may convey ambivalence to parents. Impact As one of the first studies to assess multiple aspects of recommendation quality, these findings can inform the many state and national initiatives that aim to improve communication about HPV vaccine so as to address the persistent underuse of a powerful tool for cancer prevention.

Objective Risk beliefs are central to most theories of health behavior, yet many unanswered questions remain about an increasingly studied risk construct, anticipated regret. We sought to better understand anticipated regret’s role in motivating health behaviors. Methods We systematically searched electronic databases for studies of anticipated regret and behavioral intentions or health behavior. We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesize effect sizes from 81 studies (n=45,618). Results Anticipated regret was associated with both intentions (r+= .50, p<.001) and health behavior (r+= .29, p<.001). Greater anticipated regret from engaging in a behavior (i.e., action regret) predicted weaker intentions and behavior, while greater anticipated regret from not engaging in a behavior (i.e., inaction regret) predicted stronger intentions and behavior. Anticipated action regret had smaller associations with behavioral intentions related to less severe and more distal hazards, but these moderation findings were not present for inaction regret. Anticipated regret generally was a stronger predictor of intentions and behavior than other anticipated negative emotions and risk appraisals. Conclusions Anticipated inaction regret has a stronger and more stable association with health behavior than previously thought. The field should give greater attention to understanding how anticipated regret differs from similar constructs, its role in health behavior theory, and its potential use in health behavior interventions.

Introduction Healthcare provider recommendations are critical for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake. We sought to describe providers' HPV vaccine recommendation practices and explore their perceptions of parental hesitancy. Method A statewide sample (n=575) of Minnesota healthcare providers (20% pediatricians, 47% family medicine physicians, 33% nurse practitioners) completed our online survey in April 2013. Results Only 76% of healthcare providers reported routinely recommending HPV vaccine for girls ages 11-12, and far fewer (46%) did so for boys (p<.001). A majority of providers reported asking questions about parents' concerns (74%), but many lacked time to probe reasons (47%) or felt that they could not change parents' minds (55%). Higher levels of self-efficacy and outcome expectations were associated with routine recommendations (p<.05). Discussion Findings suggest that providers' perceptions of hesitancy may discourage them from routinely recommending HPV vaccine. Improving providers' self-efficacy to address hesitancy may be important for improving vaccination rates.

Purpose Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a new type of device that delivers vaporized nicotine without the tobacco combustion of regular cigarettes. We sought to understand awareness of and willingness to try e-cigarettes among adolescent males, a group that is at risk for smoking initiation and may use e-cigarettes as a “gateway” to smoking. Methods A national sample of 11–19-year-old males (n =228) completed an online survey in November 2011. We recruited participants through their parents, who were members of a panel of U.S. households constructed using random-digit dialing and addressed-based sampling. Results Only two participants (< 1%) had previously tried e-cigarettes. Among those who had not tried e-cigarettes, most (67%) had heard of them. Awareness was higher among older and non- Hispanic adolescents. Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) participants were willing to try either a plain or flavored e-cigarette, but willingness to try plain versus flavored varieties did not differ. Smokers were more willing to try any e-cigarette than nonsmokers (74% vs. 13%; OR 10.25, 95% CI 2.88, 36.46). Nonsmokers who had more negative beliefs about the typical smoker were less willing to try e-cigarettes (OR .58, 95% CI .43, .79). Conclusions Most adolescent males were aware of e-cigarettes, and a substantial minority were willing to try them. Given that even experimentation with e-cigarettes could lead to nicotine dependence and subsequent use of other tobacco products, regulatory and behavioral interventions are needed to prevent “gateway” use by adolescent nonsmokers. Campaigns promoting negative images of smokers or FDA bans on sales to youth may help deter use.

Purpose Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered nicotine delivery systems that may serve as a “gateway” to tobacco use by adolescents. Use of e-cigarettes by U.S. adolescents rose from 3% in 2011 to 7% in 2012. We sought to describe healthcare providers’ awareness of e-cigarettes and to assess their comfort with and attitudes toward discussing e-cigarettes with adolescent patients and their parents. Methods A statewide sample (n = 561) of Minnesota healthcare providers (46% family medicine physicians, 20% pediatricians, and 34% nurse practitioners) who treat adolescents completed an online survey in April 2013. Results Nearly all providers (92%) were aware of e-cigarettes, and 11% reported having treated an adolescent patient who had used them. The most frequently cited sources of information about e-cigarettes were patients, news stories, and advertisements, rather than professional sources. Providers expressed considerable concern that e-cigarettes could be a gateway to tobacco use but had moderately low levels of knowledge about and comfort discussing e-cigarettes with adolescent patients and their parents. Compared with pediatricians and nurse practitioners, family medicine physicians reported knowing more about e-cigarettes and being more comfortable discussing them with patients (both p < .05). Nearly all respondents (92%) wanted to learn more about e-cigarettes. Conclusions Healthcare providers who treat adolescents may need to incorporate screening and counseling about e-cigarettes into routine preventive services, particularly if the prevalence of use continues to increase in this population. Education about e-cigarettes could help providers deliver comprehensive preventive services to adolescents at risk of tobacco use.