AzTrials
AzTrials

Human Papilloma Virus Infection Type 11NCT02551887

HPV Vaccination: An Investigation of Physician Reminders and Recommendation Scripts

A study testing Automated Reminder and Automated Reminder Plus Script in people with Human Papilloma Virus Infection Type 11 and Human Papilloma Virus Infection Type 16, run by Regenstrief Institute, Inc..

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Primary, Secondary, and Exploratory Objective(s): Primary objective: To evaluate the effect of interventions on 1st dose uptake of HPV vaccine. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 11 to 14 years
What is being tested?
Automated Reminder and Automated Reminder Plus Script
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
647 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Feb 2014to Jun 2015
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 11 to 14 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child

Who may be able to join

  • Eligible Providers
  • All pediatricians and nurse practitioners who provide health care at the 5 CHICA clinics will be included in this study.
  • Eligible Patients
  • Males and females
  • 11-14 years of age with no prior HPV vaccine doses administered
  • Eligible for Tdap and/or MCV4 vaccination at the visit.

Who cannot join

  • Patients in the eligible age range who have already received one or more of the adolescent platform vaccines

About this study

Primary, Secondary, and Exploratory Objective(s):

Primary objective: To evaluate the effect of interventions on 1st dose uptake of HPV vaccine.

Read the detailed description

Study Rationale:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake among females and males remains unacceptably low. Health care provider recommendation of HPV vaccine is a major driver of vaccine acceptance. Conversely, the failure of health care providers to recommend HPV vaccine has repeatedly been identified as the primary factor in non-vaccination. Among many recommendations for increasing HPV vaccination rates are several that specifically target health care providers. Two approaches are implementation of electronic health records-based decision support systems and interventions designed to help physicians recommend HPV vaccine in a routine, matter-of-fact manner that addresses uneasiness in discussing sexual activity with parents of adolescents.

A randomized, 3-arm interventional study is proposed.

The 3 arms (randomized at the level of health care provider) will be:

  1. usual practice;
  2. automated reminders to recommend HPV vaccine for eligible male and female adolescents during clinic visits;
  3. automated reminders PLUS a suggested recommendation script.

Here is a draft of the recommendation script that the study team is proposing for the third arm of the study: "Three vaccines are recommended for <first name>, meningococcal to prevent meningitis, HPV to prevent cancer, and Tdap to prevent tetanus. All three are recommended at this age". The script draft was based on the principles of Diffusion Theory and on theories of learning and memory.

Diffusion Theory predicts that adoption of an innovation (in this case the recommendation script) is predicted by three central factors:

  1. The innovation should be seen as superior to the approach it is intended to replace (ADVANTAGE);
  2. The innovation should be viewed as consistent with pre-existing beliefs and experiences (COMPATIBILITY); and
  3. The innovation should be seen as easy to understand and implement (COMPLEXITY).

It is believed that the proposed script meets the ADVANTAGE criterion in that it provides a simple, straightforward way of introducing the HPV vaccine into conversations with adolescents and their parents, an issue with which some physicians struggle. The script meets the COMPATIBILITY criterion in that it makes the HPV vaccine recommendation consistent with the way other vaccines are typically recommended in conversations with adolescents and their parents. Finally, the proposed script meets the COMPLEXITY criterion in that it is simple and will likely be time-saving in most cases. Furthermore, the existing electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure at the target clinics will support easy introduction of the recommendation and script into clinical workflow.

Research in learning and memory has shown that information presented first or last in a sequence has the greatest salience and is therefore most likely to be remembered. In our suggested script, HPV vaccine was purposely in the middle, between Tdap and meningococcal vaccines to decrease the salience of HPV vaccination, thereby helping physicians to treat the three vaccines in a consistent manner. When HPV vaccine is mentioned last, there may be a tendency to hesitate or to treat it as separate from the other recommended vaccines.

Approximately 30 pediatric health care providers will be randomized across the 3 arms in equal numbers. The primary outcome of interest, HPV vaccination, will be evaluated as a patient outcome nested within provider. Physician acceptance of the recommendations, comparing changes in vaccination rates with qualitative feedback from providers will be further assessed. To gather qualitative feedback, 3-4 pediatric health care providers in each clinic will be interviewed. Participants will be purposely selected based on provider demographics, including gender, years in practice, and role within the clinic organizational structure. The interviews will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a theory and evidence-based framework that represents the accumulated results of over 50 years of research on implementation and diffusion. Mixed methods will enable the team to examine not only impact on vaccination rates but also the characteristics of the reminder (e.g., usability, support of workflow), its implementation, and the context of setting in which it was implemented (e.g., clinical structure).

Aims and Objectives Aim 1. To evaluate the effects of physician-targeted automated HPV vaccination reminders alone and reminders plus a recommended script on HPV vaccination rates among 9-12 year old male and female patients.

Hypothesis. It is expected that a linear increase in HPV vaccination rates across the usual practice control group and the two intervention conditions, such that the reminder + script group will have the highest first dose HPV vaccination rates, followed by the reminder-only group will be noted.

Secondary objective: To evaluate rates of return for second dose. Exploratory objective: To evaluate experiences of pediatric health care providers with the reminder and script interventions.

Materials and Methods:

The Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) system, described in detail above, has already been developed and has been in operation since November of 2004. The functionality is well documented. New components of the system will have to be developed for this study. The first of these will be the activation of CHICA's ability to randomize its alerts by provider. The second will be the development of the Arden Syntax rules (Medical Logic Modules) to query the data from the immunization registry and generate appropriate prompts and reminders to the clinician. Once written, these rules must be encoded in CHICA and extensively tested with clinical data before they are deployed. Third, the study team will develop a mechanism by which CHICA can query the immunization registry at some time point after the clinic visit to determine whether an HPV vaccine was administered.

Include potential difficulties and limitations of the available methods and strategies for overcoming those methods. Randomization by physician depends on having accurate data from the clinic's registration system about which physician the patient will see. The study team has used this information in the past without significant problems. However, if it is noted that the data are missing or unreliable in a significant number of cases, the study team can ask for the information to be entered into the system by clinic personnel prior to the visit.

Programming of Arden rules is part and parcel of operating the CHICA system. So the study team does not anticipate problems with developing and testing these. The study team closely monitor the display and response to CHICA reminders. If there is a problem, the study team will be able to detect and correct it quickly.

The ability to query the CHIRP immunization registry by Health Level Seven International (HL7) messaging has recently been developed. The responses from CHIRP are not perfect, but are well over 90% reliable. The study team will build our system for querying CHIRP for HPV data to track and reissue failed queries in order to maximize the available data.

The location of the study sites. As previously noted, the study will be conducted in the five clinics in the Eskenazi Health System that currently use CHICA. They are: Eskenazi Outpatient Care Center, Blackburn, Pecar, Eskenazi 38th St., and Forest Manor.

Outcome measurement. The outcome of primary interest, HPV vaccine uptake, will be recorded by having the CHICA system re-query the CHIRP system after each visit. The study team will record whether HPV vaccine was administered. The CHICA system will be programmed to track patients who are enrolled in the study. Between 7 and 30 days after the clinic visit, CHICA will send an HL7 query for vaccination (VXQ) message for each patient to the CHIRP immunization registry of the Indiana State Department of Health. In response to this query message, CHIRP will send an HL7 vaccination record response (VXR) message with the patient's immunization record. Because all of the CHICA clinics report their immunization data to CHIRP, this will be a reliable way to assess whether the patient received an HPV vaccine.

Predictors of HPV vaccine uptake. The study team will use the re-query of CHIRP to determine which other vaccines (e.g., meningococcal; Tdap; influenza) were administered. Other variables of interest that will be recorded will be provider seen, patient age, and patient gender.

The 5 CHICA clinic study sites are located throughout metropolitan Indianapolis. These clinics serve largely low income (70% Medicaid) and minority (33% Hispanic, 49% African American) children. CHICA has provided data to over 37,000 children since first implemented in 2004. As indicated in Part 1 (Introduction), these CHICA clinics have been used successfully for multiple pediatric health service intervention studies. The real-world implementation being used in this study is a great strength. It will enable us to evaluate how a reminder system and recommended script influence HPV vaccination practices in busy pediatric clinics. An inherent limitation with this kind of study is that the study team is limited in the kind of data that can be collected. The study team cannot, for instance, collect attitude/knowledge information from parents. However, it is believed that the strengths of this research methodology far outweigh the limitations.

Qualitative interviews. Interviews will be digitally recorded and transcribed. Interviewers will be asked to record field notes related to the interview to capture information not included in the transcripts (e.g., tone of voice). Digital recordings will be transferred to a password-protected computer, in a locked office. Recordings and transcripts will be saved for a 3-year period from the end of the study. At that point in time, digital recordings and transcripts will be permanently erased. Content analysis will enable investigators to identify patterns in respondents' answers. The study team will specifically look for barriers to implementation and use of the recommendations and scripts as well as contextual aspects that facilitated routine use of the recommendations and scripts to improve adherence to recommended HPV vaccination guidelines.

Being tested
Automated Reminder, Automated Reminder Plus Script
Keywords
HPV Vaccinations, Quadrivalent Vaccine
Medical subject headings
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Condylomata Acuminata, Oropharyngeal Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Automated ReminderBehavioural

    Automated reminder shown to provider

  • Automated Reminder Plus ScriptBehavioural

    Provider sees both reminder and script.

Study groups in NCT02551887
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Usual CareNo interventionUsual Care Only
Automated ReminderActive comparatorReminder
Receives: Behavioral: Automated Reminder
Automated Reminder Plus ScriptExperimentalProvider sees both reminder and script.
Receives: Behavioral: Automated Reminder Plus Script

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. First Dose HPV Vaccine Uptake

    The outcome of primary interest, HPV vaccine uptake, is recorded as the number of patients who receive the first dose of HPV vaccine.

    Measured: Nine Months

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Second Dose HPV Vaccine Uptake

    The rate of second dose of HPV vaccine uptake, is recorded as the number of patients who receive the second dose of HPV vaccine.

    Measured: Nine Months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted16 Sep 2015 (estimated)
  2. Study startFeb 2014
  3. Primary completionApr 2015
  4. Study completionJun 2015

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Care provider
Enrolment
647 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02551887
Sponsor's protocol ID
Merck - 14
Status last verified
Feb 2016
First submitted
15 Sep 2015
Last updated
11 Mar 2016
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Parkin DM, Bray F. Chapter 2: The burden of HPV-related cancers. Vaccine. 2006 Aug 31;24 Suppl 3:S3/11-25. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.111.

    PubMed 16949997
  • Giuliano AR, Anic G, Nyitray AG. Epidemiology and pathology of HPV disease in males. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2 Suppl):S15-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.026. Epub 2010 Feb 6.

    PubMed 20138345
  • Chaturvedi AK. Beyond cervical cancer: burden of other HPV-related cancers among men and women. J Adolesc Health. 2010 Apr;46(4 Suppl):S20-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.016.

    PubMed 20307840
  • Haupt RM, Sings HL. The efficacy and safety of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus 6/11/16/18 vaccine gardasil. J Adolesc Health. 2011 Nov;49(5):467-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.003. Epub 2011 Sep 9.

    PubMed 22018560
  • Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety,12-13 June 2013. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2013 Jul 19;88(29):301-12. No abstract available. English, French.

    PubMed 23909011
  • Arnheim-Dahlstrom L, Pasternak B, Svanstrom H, Sparen P, Hviid A. Autoimmune, neurological, and venous thromboembolic adverse events after immunisation of adolescent girls with quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Denmark and Sweden: cohort study. BMJ. 2013 Oct 9;347:f5906. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5906.

    PubMed 24108159
  • Ojha RP, Jackson BE, Tota JE, Offutt-Powell TN, Singh KP, Bae S. Guillain-Barre syndrome following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination among vaccine-eligible individuals in the United States. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(1):232-7. doi: 10.4161/hv.26292. Epub 2013 Sep 6.

    PubMed 24013368
  • Klein NP, Hansen J, Chao C, Velicer C, Emery M, Slezak J, Lewis N, Deosaransingh K, Sy L, Ackerson B, Cheetham TC, Liaw KL, Takhar H, Jacobsen SJ. Safety of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine administered routinely to females. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012 Dec;166(12):1140-8. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1451.

    PubMed 23027469
  • Pedersen C, Petaja T, Strauss G, Rumke HC, Poder A, Richardus JH, Spiessens B, Descamps D, Hardt K, Lehtinen M, Dubin G; HPV Vaccine Adolescent Study Investigators Network. Immunization of early adolescent females with human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine containing AS04 adjuvant. J Adolesc Health. 2007 Jun;40(6):564-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.02.015.

    PubMed 17531764
  • Reisinger KS, Block SL, Lazcano-Ponce E, Samakoses R, Esser MT, Erick J, Puchalski D, Giacoletti KE, Sings HL, Lukac S, Alvarez FB, Barr E. Safety and persistent immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine in preadolescents and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007 Mar;26(3):201-9. doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000253970.29190.5a.

    PubMed 17484215
  • Baandrup L, Blomberg M, Dehlendorff C, Sand C, Andersen KK, Kjaer SK. Significant decrease in the incidence of genital warts in young Danish women after implementation of a national human papillomavirus vaccination program. Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Feb;40(2):130-5. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31827bd66b.

    PubMed 23324976
  • Ali H, Donovan B, Wand H, Read TR, Regan DG, Grulich AE, Fairley CK, Guy RJ. Genital warts in young Australians five years into national human papillomavirus vaccination programme: national surveillance data. BMJ. 2013 Apr 18;346:f2032. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2032.

    PubMed 23599298
  • Ali H, Guy RJ, Wand H, Read TR, Regan DG, Grulich AE, Fairley CK, Donovan B. Decline in in-patient treatments of genital warts among young Australians following the national HPV vaccination program. BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Mar 18;13:140. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-140.

    PubMed 23506489
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National and state vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years--United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013 Aug 30;62(34):685-93.

    PubMed 23985496
  • Brewer NT, Gottlieb SL, Reiter PL, McRee AL, Liddon N, Markowitz L, Smith JS. Longitudinal predictors of human papillomavirus vaccine initiation among adolescent girls in a high-risk geographic area. Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Mar;38(3):197-204. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181f12dbf.

    PubMed 20838362

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Automated Reminder and Automated Reminder Plus Script in people with Human Papilloma Virus Infection Type 11 and Human Papilloma Virus Infection Type 16, run by Regenstrief Institute, Inc..

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Mar 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 4 Feb 2016). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

First Dose HPV Vaccine Uptake (time frame: Nine Months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02551887, which also lists 45 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Mar 2016.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in