Aspects of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign differed from routine vaccines, including emergency use authorizations, the prioritization of access, and the politicization of messaging. Subsequently, many parents reported lower vaccine confidence relative to routine vaccines, and vaccination coverage stalled below targets. This study aimed to understand parental vaccine decision making and compare COVID-19 versus routine vaccine decision making. We conducted nine virtual focus groups between 25 February 2022–11 March 2022 with parents (n = 41) of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s patients, recruited via email and stratified by vaccine hesitancy status (non-hesitant vs. hesitant). Transcripts were analyzed using the vaccine hesitancy matrix domains. Of 41 total participants, 25 (61.0%) were non-hesitant, 16 (39.0%) were hesitant or their children were not up-to-date on adolescent vaccines, and most self-identified as female (95.1%) and White/Caucasian (61.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and many of their first children (n = 26, 63.4%) were vaccinated against influenza. Several themes emerged regarding decision making: individual influences, group influences, vaccine and vaccine program influences, and contextual influences. While some influences were similar for routine and COVID-19 vaccine decision making (e.g., needing evidence-based information), other factors were vaccine- or situation-specific. Building trust requires a multi-faceted concerted effort that involves addressing the complex vaccine decision-making process.

Background Appropriate management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) involves parents, clinicians, and teachers. Fragmentation of interventions between different settings can lead to suboptimal care and outcomes. Electronic systems can bridge gaps across settings. Our institution developed an email-based software to collect ADHD information from parents and teachers, which delivered data directly to the clinician within the electronic health record (EHR). Objective We sought to adapt our institution's existing EHR-linked system for ADHD symptom monitoring to support communication between parents and teachers and then to assess child characteristics associated with sharing of ADHD information. Methods We updated our software to support automated sharing of ADHD information between parents and teachers. Sharing was optional for parents but obligatory for teachers. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 590 patients at 31 primary care sites to evaluate a system for sharing of ADHD-specific health information between parents and teachers. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate associations between child characteristics and parental sharing. We further investigated the association between child characteristics and viewing of survey results delivered through the electronic communication system. Results Most parents (64%) elected to share survey results with teachers at the first opportunity and the vast majority (80%) elected to share all possible information. Parents who elected to share usually continue sharing at subsequent opportunities (89%). Younger child age and performance impairments were associated with increased likelihood of sharing. However, parents viewed only 16% of teacher submitted surveys and teachers only viewed 30% of surveys shared by parents. Conclusion This study demonstrates that electronic systems to capture ADHD information from parents and teachers can be adapted to support communication between them, and that parents are amenable to sharing ADHD information with teachers. However, strategies are needed to encourage viewing of shared information.

Background: Electronic health record–based clinical decision support (CDS) tools can facilitate the adoption of evidence into practice. Yet, the impact of CDS beyond single-site implementation is often limited by dissemination and implementation barriers related to site- and user-specific variation in workflows and behaviors. The translation of evidence-based CDS from initial development to implementation in heterogeneous environments requires a framework that assures careful balancing of fidelity to core functional elements with adaptations to ensure compatibility with new contexts. Objective: This study aims to develop and apply a framework to guide tailoring and implementing CDS across diverse clinical settings. Methods: In preparation for a multisite trial implementing CDS for pediatric overweight or obesity in primary care, we developed the User-Centered Framework for Implementation of Technology (UFIT), a framework that integrates principles from user-centered design (UCD), human factors/ergonomics theories, and implementation science to guide both CDS adaptation and tailoring of related implementation strategies. Our transdisciplinary study team conducted semistructured interviews with pediatric primary care clinicians and a diverse group of stakeholders from 3 health systems in the northeastern, midwestern, and southeastern United States to inform and apply the framework for our formative evaluation. Results: We conducted 41 qualitative interviews with primary care clinicians (n=21) and other stakeholders (n=20). Our workflow analysis found 3 primary ways in which clinicians interact with the electronic health record during primary care well-child visits identifying opportunities for decision support. Additionally, we identified differences in practice patterns across contexts necessitating a multiprong design approach to support a variety of workflows, user needs, preferences, and implementation strategies. Conclusions: UFIT integrates theories and guidance from UCD, human factors/ergonomics, and implementation science to promote fit with local contexts for optimal outcomes. The components of UFIT were used to guide the development of Improving Pediatric Obesity Practice Using Prompts, an integrated package comprising CDS for obesity or overweight treatment with tailored implementation strategies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05627011; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05627011

: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected refugee, immigrant, and migrant populations. Vaccines are essential for decreasing transmission and severity of COVID-19 infection. Understanding differences in vaccination coverage based on preferred language is crucial for focusing efforts to decrease COVID-19–related disparities. Four sites in the Minnesota Center of Excellence in Newcomer Health collaboratively evaluated completion of primary COVID-19 vaccination series on or before December 31, 2021, for patients who were 12 years or older on June 30, 2021, by preferred language. The non-English/non-Spanish speaking population included 46,714 patients who spoke 174 languages; COVID-19 vaccination coverage by language ranged from 26.2% to 88.0%. Stratifying vaccination coverage by specific language is a critical first step toward dismantling disparities and shaping interventions that best meet the needs of communities served.

Background: Pediatric lead exposure in the United States (U.S.) remains a preventable public health crisis. Shareable electronic clinical decision support (CDS) could improve lead screening and management. However, discrepancies between federal, state and local recommendations could present significant challenges for implementation. Methods: We identified publically available guidance on lead screening and management. We extracted definitions for elevated lead and recommendations for screening, follow-up, reporting, and management. We compared thresholds and level of obligation for management actions. Finally, we assessed the feasibility of development of shareable CDS. Results: We identified 54 guidance sources. States offered different definitions of elevated lead, and recommendations for screening, reporting, follow-up and management. Only 37 of 48 states providing guidance used the Center for Disease Control (CDC) definition for elevated lead. There were 17 distinct management actions. Guidance sources indicated an average of 5.5 management actions, but offered different criteria and levels of obligation for these actions. Despite differences, the recommendations were well-structured, actionable, and encodable, indicating shareable CDS is feasible. Conclusion: Current variability across guidance poses challenges for clinicians. Developing shareable CDS is feasible and could improve pediatric lead screening and management. Shareable CDS would need to account for local variability in guidance.

Objective: To develop a process for translating semi-structured clinical decision support (CDS) into shareable, computer-readable CDS. Materials and Methods: We developed a systematic and transparent process using publicly available tools (eGLIA, GEM Cutter, VSAC, and the CDS Authoring Tool) to translate an evidence-based clinical pathway (CP) into a Clinical Quality Language (CQL)-encoded CDS artifact. Results: We produced a 4-phase process for translating a CP into a CQL-based CDS artifact. CP content was extracted using GEM into discrete clinical concepts, encoded using standard terminologies into value sets on VSAC, evaluated against workflows using a wireframe, and finally structured as a computer readable CDS artifact using CQL. This process included a quality control step and intermediate products to support transparency and reuse by other CDS developers. Discussion: Translating a CP into a shareable, computer-readable CDS artifact was accomplished through a systematic process. Our process identified areas of ambiguity and gaps in the CP, which generated improvements in the CP. Collaboration with clinical subject experts and the CP development team was essential for translation. Publicly available tools were sufficient to support most translation steps, but expression of certain complex concepts required manual encoding. Conclusion: Standardized development of CDS from a CP is feasible using a systematic 4-phase process. CPs represent a potential reservoir for developers of evidence-based CDS. Aspects of CP development simplified portions of the CDS translation process. Publicly available tools can facilitate CDS development; however, enhanced tool features are needed to model complex CDS statements.