Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;159:100-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.030. Epub 2016 Apr 25.

Collaborative patient-provider communication and uptake of adolescent vaccines.

Author information

1
Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
2
College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
3
Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.

Abstract

RATIONALE:

Recommendations from healthcare providers are one of the most consistent correlates of adolescent vaccination, but few studies have investigated other elements of patient-provider communication and their relevance to uptake.

OBJECTIVE:

We examined competing hypotheses about the relationship of patient-driven versus provider-driven communication styles with vaccination.

METHODS:

We gathered information about vaccine uptake from healthcare provider-verified data in the 2010 National Immunization Survey-Teen for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster, meningococcal vaccine, and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (initiation among females) for adolescents ages 13-17. We categorized communication style in parents' conversations with healthcare providers about vaccines, based on parents' reports (of whether a provider recommended a vaccine and, if so, if conversations were informed, shared, or efficient) (N = 9021).

RESULTS:

Most parents reported either no provider recommendation (Tdap booster: 35%; meningococcal vaccine: 46%; and HPV vaccine: 31%) or reported a provider recommendation and shared patient-provider communication (43%, 38%, and 49%, respectively). Provider recommendations were associated with increased odds of vaccination (all ps < 0.001). In addition, more provider-driven communication styles were associated with higher rates of uptake for meningococcal vaccine (efficient style: 82% vs. shared style: 77% vs. informed style: 68%; p < 0.001 for shared vs. informed) and HPV vaccine (efficient style: 90% vs. shared style: 70% vs. informed style: 33%; p < 0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSION:

Efficient communication styles were used rarely (≤2% across vaccines) but were highly effective for encouraging meningococcal and HPV vaccination. Intervention studies are needed to confirm that efficient communication approaches increase HPV vaccination among adolescents.

KEYWORDS:

Adolescents; Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine; Meningococcal vaccine; Patient-provider communication; Providers; Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap) booster

PMID:
27176467
PMCID:
PMC4881857
DOI:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.030
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center