Video Abstract

Video Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection can lead to serious health issues and remains the most common sexually transmitted infection. Despite availability of effective vaccines, HPV vaccination rates are suboptimal.

METHODS:

In a cluster randomized trial, an intervention used to target parents of adolescents (11–17 years) eligible for a dose of HPV vaccine, was tested in pediatric clinics part of an urban health system. Parents watched a digital video outlining the risks and benefits of vaccine using a tablet in the examination room. The primary outcome was change in HPV vaccine status 2 weeks after the clinic visit. An intention-to-treat analysis for the primary outcome used generalized estimating equations to accommodate the potential cluster effect of clinics.

RESULTS:

A total of 1596 eligible adolescents were observed during the 7-month trial. One-third of adolescents visited an intervention clinic. Adolescents who attended an intervention clinic were more likely to be younger (11–12 years) than those who attended a control clinic (72.4% vs 49.8%; P < .001). No differences in race or sex were observed. The proportion of adolescents with an observed change in vaccine status was higher for those attending an intervention clinic (64.8%) versus control clinic (50.1%; odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.47–2.25; P < .001). Adolescents whose parents watched the video had a 3-times greater odds of receiving a dose of the HPV vaccine (78.0%; odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.47–6.42; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS:

Educational interventions delivered within a clinical setting hold promise to improve vaccination behaviors.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Human papillomavirus (HPV) remains the most common sexually transmitted infection. Despite availability of effective vaccines, HPV vaccination rates are suboptimal. Previous research on improving HPV vaccination rates has been focused primarily on decision aids that target providers.

What This Study Adds:

Patient-centered education strategies delivered in a clinic setting via information technology platforms can positively impact the adoption of preventive health behaviors. Yet integration of information technology platforms into routine care is challenging. More research on strategies that can be scaled is warranted.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, with ∼79 million infected and 14 million new cases each year.1 Infection with HPV is a causal factor for serious health issues, including cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers in women; anal and oropharyngeal cancers as well as genital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in men and women; and penile cancer in men,2 making HPV a significant threat to public health.

Moreover, many HPV infections are preventable via vaccination. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that the HPV vaccine be routinely administered to early adolescents (ie, 11- to 12-year-olds) in the United States.3 Healthy People 2020 goals for vaccine coverage include 80.0% of individuals completing the HPV vaccine series by age 13 to 15.4 Despite availability of the 9-valent HPV vaccine that can prevent up to 90.0% of cervical cancers and genital warts,5 HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain well below the Healthy People 2020 goals.6 In 2016, only 65.1% of adolescent girls and 56.0% of adolescent boys ages 13 through 17 years received 1 or more dose of the vaccine.7 The percentages are even lower for series completion (49.5% of girls and 37.5% of boys). With respect to Indiana, 2016 data reveal the state to be ranked 46th in first dose administration among women and girls and tied for last for men and boys.7 

Previous research on interventions to improve HPV vaccination rates focused on the following 3 levels: community, provider, and consumer (parent or adolescent). At the community level, there is moderate-level evidence across studies in multiple countries for policies that can nearly double HPV vaccination rates among adolescents, such as requiring vaccination for school-age children.8 Although effective, public health strategies are often challenging to implement.

Evidence at the provider level is mixed. A small set of clinical decision support (CDS) interventions to increase provider recommendation of the vaccine to parents or adolescent patients have been developed and tested, because provider recommendation is consistently cited as a primary reason that parents vaccinate or indicate intent to vaccinate their adolescent children.9,11 Of the previous studies (N = 6) used to examine CDS interventions, half found no difference in HPV vaccination rates postintervention.12,16 Although these studies suggest CDS prompts are associated with provider recommendation of the HPV vaccine, the evidence also suggests achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal will require more than just provider-based CDS prompts.

Evidence for interventions at the consumer level is positive but weak. A heterogeneous set of studies (N = 12)8,12 examined interventions that target parents and adolescents. These interventions typically involved postal or telephone-based reminders that the adolescent was due to start or complete the HPV series. Two of the studies examined video-based interventions targeting high school and college-aged female students.17,18 Two review articles8,12 concluded that most of these interventions improved HPV vaccination uptake. Yet the methods employed in these studies were generally weak with many lacking a control group. Furthermore, few studies targeted younger adolescents, and few studies took place within a typical outpatient clinic setting.

Although previous research provides a foundation that suggests a combination of community-, provider-, and consumer-directed interventions will be required to achieve the Healthy People 2020 goals, there is limited evidence on the best strategies to reach younger adolescents of both sexes in typical pediatric clinic settings. In particular, there is a dearth of evidence on whether and how digital technologies can support informed decision-making about preventive health behaviors.

Given poor HPV vaccination rates in Indiana as well as limited evidence on consumer-centered technology applications that can be deployed in a typical clinical setting, we designed a cluster randomized trial to test the effect of a digital HPV vaccine educational intervention to be delivered during a clinic visit. With our study, we contribute evidence on whether and how information technologies can increase awareness and support parental decision-making about prevention behaviors such as vaccination. With this article, we summarize the results of the trial.

We employed a cluster randomized trial with a 2-arm design to examine the efficacy of an education intervention on HPV vaccine series first dose (initiation), second dose, and/or third dose (completion) among 11- to 17-year-old boys and girls from October 2015 to May 2016. Five urban health clinics were grouped into clusters on the basis of patient volume, race, and sex. Clusters were randomly assigned by coin flip. After randomization, the intervention cluster contained 2 clinics, and the control cluster contained 3 clinics. The study was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. The institutional review board waived the requirement for written informed consent.

Eskenazi Health is 1 of the 5 largest safety net health systems in the United States. The health system contains a 315-bed hospital and 9 community health centers located across the metropolitan area of Indianapolis, Indiana, the 11th largest city in the United States. All 5 pediatric clinics within the health system served as the setting for this study.

The Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) system is an operational CDS system used in the 5 pediatric clinics for >12 years.19 When a child was signed into 1 of the pediatric clinics, the electronic health record (EHR) system sent a Health Level 7 admit-discharge-transfer (registration) message to CHICA. In response, CHICA queried the patient’s medical record. At the same time, the system sent an electronic request to Children and Hoosier Immunization Registry Program (CHIRP), Indiana’s immunization information system (IIS).20,21 In response, CHICA received a download of the child’s immunization history. The download included CHIRP’s “forecast” of the immunizations for which the patient was due. The electronic transfer of immunization information between CHICA and CHIRP is a form of health information exchange (HIE).22 

Theo is an interactive, consumer-directed mobile health software developed by Noble.MD (recently acquired by WellTrackOne, Hilton Head Island, SC) that functions on a tablet platform. Theo can be used to screen for health risks at the point of care by using validated screening surveys, identify specific patient risks, and deliver a standardized educational video in real time. Theo is used to measure pre- and postintervention patient knowledge, attitudes, readiness for change, and risk mitigation. Theo can be used to create a digital record compliant with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that can be integrated into an EHR.

The technical system integrating CHICA and Theo is summarized in Fig 1. Once CHICA determined an adolescent registered into the clinic to be eligible for the intervention by analyzing their combined medical record (1) and immunization registry (2) data, a medical assistant (MA) in the clinic was notified (3) and provided the patient’s study identifier (a randomly generated study identifier). The MA then provided the parent of the adolescent with a tablet and entered the study identifier into the Theo software (4). One of 2 programs then launched (5), depending on the adolescent’s current HPV vaccination status.

FIGURE 1

Information architecture and workflow used to trigger a clinical encounter involving the tablet educational intervention. As patients sign into the clinic, vaccination records are gathered electronically from the EHR and IIS. The CHICA CDSS (clinical decision support system) determines eligibility and notifies the MA if the patient should receive a tablet and provides a subject identifier. The subject identifier is entered into the tablet, which is given to the parent of the adolescent as the MA escorts them back to the examination room.

FIGURE 1

Information architecture and workflow used to trigger a clinical encounter involving the tablet educational intervention. As patients sign into the clinic, vaccination records are gathered electronically from the EHR and IIS. The CHICA CDSS (clinical decision support system) determines eligibility and notifies the MA if the patient should receive a tablet and provides a subject identifier. The subject identifier is entered into the tablet, which is given to the parent of the adolescent as the MA escorts them back to the examination room.

The first program, created for adolescents who had not yet received the first dose of the HPV vaccine, assessed whether the family had already decided in favor of the HPV vaccine or if the family wanted more information. If the system determined the family was in favor of receiving a vaccine at the visit, the program provided a simple reinforcement message. If the family indicated a desire for more information about the HPV vaccine, the program provided information specific to the cancer prevention benefits and safety profile of the vaccine. The second program, for adolescents who had already received the first or second vaccine in the series, emphasized the need to make the first vaccine count by receiving the full series. Both programs were available in English and Spanish.

The program scripts were created by several authors (G.D.Z., S.M.D., B.E.D., and B.L.) with expertise in adolescent health, HPV vaccination, epidemiology, and health communication. Although not assessed in this article, the scripts and questions used by participants were guided by the theory of planned behavior, which has been used in previous HPV vaccine uptake research.23,24 Once finalized, the scripts were recorded in English and Spanish then integrated into the Theo platform. The scripts are available for review and use by others after gaining permission from the authors.

Participants were parents or guardians of adolescents aged 11 to 17 who were unvaccinated and partially vaccinated as of the date of visit during the study period. All parents or guardians of adolescents attending intervention clinics were potentially eligible. Parents were excluded if their children had received the full HPV vaccination series. Parents further needed to read and comprehend either English or Spanish.

Spurious records were removed before analysis (25 out of 1621 were deleted). These records were either missing key values, such as a determination of whether the adolescent received a dose of the HPV vaccine, or calculated values were out of range (eg, adolescent went from having the first dose of HPV vaccine before the visit to having not started the vaccine series 2 weeks after the encounter).

Demographic and insurance data were summarized by treatment group to examine the overall characteristics of the cohort. Continuous variables were summarized by using means and SDs. Comparisons were made between the 2 treatment groups using t tests. Categorical variables were summarized by using proportions and differences between proportions, and significance testing was conducted with the χ2 test.

The primary outcome of interest was HPV vaccine uptake, defined as a change in vaccination status as a result of a clinic visit. Vaccination status could be 1 of 4 potential states: (1) “patient lacks documentation on starting the series,” (2) “patient had documented first dose,” (3) “patient had documented second dose,” or (4) “patient had documented third or final dose.” Documentation was determined by CHICA, which integrated records from both the adolescent’s EHR and CHIRP, the state immunization registry. The outcome variable was modeled as a binary change between 2 time periods in which a value of “1” represented a change in status (or state). A 2-week window was observed after a clinic visit to allow for any vaccines delivered in the clinic during an encounter to be recorded in the EHR or CHIRP.

To analyze the effect of the intervention on vaccine uptake, we employed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to accommodate the potential cluster effect of clinics when a significant cluster effect was identified. Specifically, GEEs account for the correlations in treatment outcomes from children seen at the same clinic. A GEE is frequently used in generalized linear models for correlated data and produces robust SE estimates.25 We performed 2 ITT analyses to compare vaccine uptake in (1) the intervention clinics versus control clinics as well as (2) the group of adolescents who received the tablet versus those who did not receive the intervention. All significance testing was 2 tailed, and the significance level was set at 5%. All data analyses were completed with SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).

A total of 1596 adolescents visited 1 of the clinics during the 7-month trial. One-third (N = 537) visited an intervention clinic with the remainder visiting a control clinic. The characteristics of the cohort are summarized in Table 1. Overall, adolescents were predominantly people of color, 11 to 12 years of age, and had Medicaid insurance.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Adolescents Visiting Control and Intervention Clinics in the Eskenazi Health System in Indianapolis, Indiana, Between October 12, 2015, and April 12, 2016

CharacteristicOverall, N = 1596Control, N = 1059Intervention, N = 537P
Sex, n (%)    .474 
 Female 723 (45.3) 473 (44.7) 250 (46.6)  
 Male 873 (54.7) 586 (55.3) 287 (53.4)  
Race, n (%)    .128 
 White 141 (8.8) 100 (9.4) 41 (7.6)  
 African American 870 (54.5) 559 (52.8) 311 (57.9)  
 Other or unknown 585 (36.7) 400 (37.8) 185 (34.5)  
Insurance, n (%)    <.001 
 Medicaid 1241 (77.8) 796 (75.2) 445 (82.9)  
 Commercial 101 (6.3) 64 (6.0) 37 (6.9)  
 Self-pay 53 (3.3) 43 (4.1) 10 (1.9)  
 Other or unknown 201 (12.6) 156 (14.7) 45 (8.4)  
Age, y, n (%)    <.001 
 11–12 916 (57.4) 527 (49.8) 389 (72.4)  
 13–14 409 (25.6) 320 (30.2) 89 (16.6)  
 15–17 271 (17.0) 212 (20.0) 59 (11.0)  
CharacteristicOverall, N = 1596Control, N = 1059Intervention, N = 537P
Sex, n (%)    .474 
 Female 723 (45.3) 473 (44.7) 250 (46.6)  
 Male 873 (54.7) 586 (55.3) 287 (53.4)  
Race, n (%)    .128 
 White 141 (8.8) 100 (9.4) 41 (7.6)  
 African American 870 (54.5) 559 (52.8) 311 (57.9)  
 Other or unknown 585 (36.7) 400 (37.8) 185 (34.5)  
Insurance, n (%)    <.001 
 Medicaid 1241 (77.8) 796 (75.2) 445 (82.9)  
 Commercial 101 (6.3) 64 (6.0) 37 (6.9)  
 Self-pay 53 (3.3) 43 (4.1) 10 (1.9)  
 Other or unknown 201 (12.6) 156 (14.7) 45 (8.4)  
Age, y, n (%)    <.001 
 11–12 916 (57.4) 527 (49.8) 389 (72.4)  
 13–14 409 (25.6) 320 (30.2) 89 (16.6)  
 15–17 271 (17.0) 212 (20.0) 59 (11.0)  

Sex and race were similar between intervention and control clinics. Adolescents attending the 2 intervention clinics were slightly younger, on average, than those who attended the control clinics (mean age 12.2 vs 12.9 years; P < .001). The study arms also differed by insurance type with adolescents attending the intervention clinics more likely to have commercial or Medicaid insurance and less likely to use self-pay or another form of insurance than those attending the control clinics (P < .001).

Vaccine status during visits as well as 2 weeks after visits is summarized in Fig 2. Similar patterns are observed across intervention and control clinics. The proportion of adolescents with no dose of the HPV vaccine 2 weeks after a clinic visit (36.2%) is lower than at the time of the visit (56.8%). In parallel, there is a rise in the proportion of adolescents with a documented first, second, or third dose of the vaccine 2 weeks after a clinic visit. The exception to this pattern is in the intervention clinics, where the proportion of adolescents with a documented first dose actually fell slightly 2 weeks postvisit (29.1%–27.9%).

FIGURE 2

Proportion of control and intervention clinic populations with no dose, 1 dose, 2 doses, and 3 doses of the HPV vaccine at the time of clinic visit and again 2 weeks after the visit during the 6-month trial of a tablet-based educational intervention.

FIGURE 2

Proportion of control and intervention clinic populations with no dose, 1 dose, 2 doses, and 3 doses of the HPV vaccine at the time of clinic visit and again 2 weeks after the visit during the 6-month trial of a tablet-based educational intervention.

Results of the ITT analysis examining the effect of the intervention are summarized in Table 2. Of those presenting to a control clinic, 531 (50.1%) received a dose of the HPV vaccine within 2 weeks of a visit. Of those presenting to an intervention clinic, 348 (64.8%) received a dose of the HPV vaccine within 2 weeks of the visit. Comparing HPV vaccination uptake (eg, a change in HPV dose status) between intervention and control clinics, adolescents presenting to an intervention clinic had nearly double the odds of receiving a dose of the HPV vaccine (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47–2.25; P < .001).

TABLE 2

Association Between Digital Educational Intervention and HPV Vaccination Uptake in the Eskenazi Health System in Indianapolis, Indiana, Between October 12, 2015, and April 12, 2016

GroupNo. Subjects, NCount of Change in Vaccine State (%)OR95% CIP
Intervention versus control clinics      
 Adolescents who presented to an intervention clinic 537 348 (64.8) 1.82 1.47–2.25 <.001 
 Adolescents who presented to a control clinic 1059 531 (50.1) N/A N/A Reference 
Tablet versus no tablet      
 Subjects who received a tablet during clinic visit at an intervention clinic 141 110 (78.0) 3.07 1.47–6.42 .003 
 Subjects who did not receive a tablet during clinic visit at a control or intervention clinic 1455 768 (52.8) N/A N/A Reference 
GroupNo. Subjects, NCount of Change in Vaccine State (%)OR95% CIP
Intervention versus control clinics      
 Adolescents who presented to an intervention clinic 537 348 (64.8) 1.82 1.47–2.25 <.001 
 Adolescents who presented to a control clinic 1059 531 (50.1) N/A N/A Reference 
Tablet versus no tablet      
 Subjects who received a tablet during clinic visit at an intervention clinic 141 110 (78.0) 3.07 1.47–6.42 .003 
 Subjects who did not receive a tablet during clinic visit at a control or intervention clinic 1455 768 (52.8) N/A N/A Reference 

N/A, not applicable.

A total of 141 (25% of those presenting to an intervention clinic) adolescents received a tablet from an MA during their visit. Nearly four-fifths (78.0%) of these adolescents received a dose of the HPV vaccine. Slightly more than half (52.8%) of adolescents who did not receive a tablet received a dose of the vaccine. Comparing HPV vaccination uptake between these groups, adolescents who received a tablet had a 3-times greater odds of receiving a dose of the HPV vaccine (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.47–6.42; P = .003). For this analysis, the cluster effect was significant (P = .005); therefore, the GEE accounted for the clustering by clinic.

In a cluster randomized trial across 5 pediatric clinics within an urban health system, we examined the effect of a digital educational intervention aimed at increasing HPV vaccination uptake among adolescents. At intervention sites, a video on the risks and benefits of the HPV vaccine or reinforcement message was presented on a mobile tablet to parents or guardians of eligible adolescents in an examination room while they waited for clinicians during a routine, nonacute care visit.

The efficacy of the tablet-based educational intervention was significant, tripling the odds of HPV vaccine uptake among adolescents who received the tablets. Viewing tailored messages on the tablets with respect to vaccine initiation or series completion likely “activated” families to either request the vaccine or discuss the vaccine with providers during the visit. It is further likely that when families asked about the vaccine after use of the tablets providers delivered positive reinforcement messages that also contributed to vaccine uptake, a “feature” of interventions like the 1 used in this study. These results suggest that patient-centered education strategies delivered in a clinic setting via information technology platforms can positively impact the adoption of preventive health behaviors.

This study adds to our understanding of consumer-oriented interventions that seek to improve HPV prevention behaviors. Authors of previous studies8,12 employed a heterogeneous set of communication media to reach adolescents or their parents, with most studies employing automated phone call reminders. Authors of just 2 studies17,18 used interactive computer-based approaches. In DiClemente et al,18 adolescent girls 14 to 18 years in age viewed a 12-minute interactive media presentation. Researchers observed a significant difference only in completion of the second dose of the HPV vaccine; there was no change in initiation rate, and there was a nonsignificant increase in completion of the third dose. In Hopfer,17 female college students 18 to 26 years in age watched videos of vaccine decision narratives delivered by peers, medical experts, or a combination of peers and experts. Women who watched the videos delivered by a combination of peers and experts were almost twice as likely as women in the control group to vaccinate within 2 months of watching the video.17 Compared with previous studies, our study included younger adolescents (11–17 years of age) and observed significant increases in series initiation as well as second and third doses of the vaccine. The younger population in the intervention clinics may explain, in part, the impact on series initiation as compared with DiClemente et al.18 

The impact of consumer-oriented educational interventions on public health could be significant if broadly used across the health system. Vaccination rates against HPV remain low in Indiana and many other states for early adolescents.7 Vaccine series completion rates also remain well below the Healthy People 2020 goals, especially for adolescent boys. An educational intervention accessible to adolescents as well as their parents or guardians could support more informed decision-making about the risks of HPV infection and benefits of vaccination. Moreover, an educational intervention might enable additive effects when combined with community- and provider-oriented interventions, which previous research suggests can also improve vaccination rates.8,11 

A key component of the intervention was the interoperable HIE network that enabled the CHICA system to gather and integrate data from the health system’s commercial EHR as well as the state IIS, known as CHIRP in Indiana. Automated query and integration of vaccine history information to the point of care provided a strong infrastructure26,27 on which the intervention could be tested. Although HIE networks exist elsewhere, the technical architecture and approach used in this study would likely need to be adapted to succeed in states with less comprehensive HIE networks or IIS.

Although the results from this trial are encouraging, implementing the trial involved several challenges. A major challenge was distribution of the tablets to eligible patients. Only a quarter of eligible patients received a tablet after clinic check-in. This presented a logistical barrier. Before providing a tablet to a patient, the MA had to be alerted by CHICA to the patient’s eligibility and manually enter the patient’s trial study identifier into the tablet. These steps proved challenging for a busy pediatric clinic environment. If tablets were routinely distributed to all patients of a certain age or every patient regardless of age and patients could use the tablets to view a variety of content, then administration of the devices might be easier on clinic staff.

Another challenge was variable wait times, because some providers came into the room just before or during the video interaction. Similarly, some clinics take patients right away to the examination room, whereas other clinics routinely have waiting periods in a lobby. These present challenges as to when it would be an appropriate time to ask patients to interact with a tablet to view an educational intervention. One possibility for future research would be to examine previsit delivery of videos and interactive media by using the Internet or mobile phone to view an educational intervention 24 to 48 hours before the visit. In a recent review that examined mobile phone applications designed to support positive adolescent preventive health choices, Badawy and Kuhns28 concluded that less than half of the studies (N = 19) observed a significant improvement in prevention decisions. Additional studies on mobile interventions would contribute to the growing evidence base on consumer-focused informatics applications.29 

This study has 3 limitations of note. First, the clustering of clinics occurred within a single, urban health system cautioning broad generalizations across all care settings. Additional testing across a variety of settings and multiple health systems would be necessary to demonstrate sustained effects before adoption into routine care. Second, the mere presence of the tablets in the clinic might have influenced provider behavior for all patients in that clinic (eg, unblinding) rather than just those patients who received the tablets. Finally, the outcome was modeled as a dichotomous variable with respect to a change in vaccine status. Because analysis was not performed separately for vaccine initiation versus series completion, the intervention may have had more effect on 1 of these groups of patients because the educational software showed different videos to each group of patients. Authors of future research should explore whether educational interventions are more effective for initiation or completion.

In a cluster randomized trial of an educational intervention to improve HPV vaccination rates delivered via a digital tablet in an examination room, efficacy was high. Although results are promising, the intervention occurred at 2 clinics in a single urban health system. An expanded, multisite trial of the intervention, perhaps in combination with an intervention targeting providers, would be necessary to demonstrate both how the intervention could scale across the health system and how the intervention might work in combination with other evidence-based methods for improving HPV vaccination rates.

     
  • CDS

    clinical decision support

  •  
  • CHICA

    Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • EHR

    electronic health record

  •  
  • GEE

    generalized estimating equation

  •  
  • HIE

    health information exchange

  •  
  • HPV

    human papillomavirus

  •  
  • IIS

    immunization information system

  •  
  • ITT

    intention-to-treat

  •  
  • MA

    medical assistant

  •  
  • OR

    odds ratio

Drs Dixon and Zimet conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Drs Xiao and Tu contributed to the study design, conducted all analyses, and contributed to drafting the manuscript; Dr Downs conceptualized and designed the study, reviewed and revised the data collection instruments, coordinated the intervention in the clinical settings, coordinated data collection, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Lindsay contributed to the study design, reviewed and revised the data collection instruments, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content; Ms Church coordinated the activities of the study team, including regulatory compliance and data collection, and she drafted parts of the initial manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02546752).

FUNDING: Supported by the Merck–Regenstrief Program in Personalized Health Care Research and Innovation (project 20). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the official view of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2018-2370.

1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
. Genital HPV infection—CDC fact sheet. 2017. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/HPV-FS-July-2017.pdf Accessed October 31,
2017
2
Radosevich
JA
, ed.
HPV and Cancer
.
Bethesda, MD
:
National Institutes of Health
;
2015
3
Meites
E
,
Kempe
A
,
Markowitz
LE
.
Use of a 2-dose schedule for human papillomavirus vaccination - updated recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2016
;
65
(
49
):
1405
1408
[PubMed]
4
Healthy People 2020
. Immunization and infectious diseases. 2014. Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/immunization-and-infectious-diseases/objectives. Accessed November 22, 2017
5
US Food and Drug Administration
. Vaccines, blood and biologics: Gardasil 9.
2018
. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm426445.htm. Accessed October 10, 2018
6
Stokley
S
,
Jeyarajah
J
,
Yankey
D
, et al;
Immunization Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC
;
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
.
Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents, 2007-2013, and postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring, 2006-2014–United States.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2014
;
63
(
29
):
620
624
[PubMed]
7
Walker
TY
,
Elam-Evans
LD
,
Singleton
JA
, et al
.
National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13-17 years - United States, 2016.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2017
;
66
(
33
):
874
882
[PubMed]
8
Das
JK
,
Salam
RA
,
Arshad
A
,
Lassi
ZS
,
Bhutta
ZA
.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to improve access and coverage of adolescent immunizations.
J Adolesc Health
.
2016
;
59
(
4S
):
S40
S48
9
Flood
EM
,
Rousculp
MD
,
Ryan
KJ
, et al
.
Parents’ decision-making regarding vaccinating their children against influenza: a web-based survey.
Clin Ther
.
2010
;
32
(
8
):
1448
1467
[PubMed]
10
Holman
DM
,
Benard
V
,
Roland
KB
,
Watson
M
,
Liddon
N
,
Stokley
S
.
Barriers to human papillomavirus vaccination among US adolescents: a systematic review of the literature.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2014
;
168
(
1
):
76
82
[PubMed]
11
Gargano
LM
,
Herbert
NL
,
Painter
JE
, et al
.
Impact of a physician recommendation and parental immunization attitudes on receipt or intention to receive adolescent vaccines.
Hum Vaccin Immunother
.
2013
;
9
(
12
):
2627
2633
[PubMed]
12
Francis
DB
,
Cates
JR
,
Wagner
KPG
,
Zola
T
,
Fitter
JE
,
Coyne-Beasley
T
.
Communication technologies to improve HPV vaccination initiation and completion: a systematic review.
Patient Educ Couns
.
2017
;
100
(
7
):
1280
1286
[PubMed]
13
Mayne
SL
,
duRivage
NE
,
Feemster
KA
,
Localio
AR
,
Grundmeier
RW
,
Fiks
AG
.
Effect of decision support on missed opportunities for human papillomavirus vaccination.
Am J Prev Med
.
2014
;
47
(
6
):
734
744
[PubMed]
14
Szilagyi
PG
,
Serwint
JR
,
Humiston
SG
, et al
.
Effect of provider prompts on adolescent immunization rates: a randomized trial.
Acad Pediatr
.
2015
;
15
(
2
):
149
157
[PubMed]
15
Fiks
AG
,
Grundmeier
RW
,
Mayne
S
, et al
.
Effectiveness of decision support for families, clinicians, or both on HPV vaccine receipt.
Pediatrics
.
2013
;
131
(
6
):
1114
1124
[PubMed]
16
Zimet
G
,
Dixon
BE
,
Xiao
S
, et al
.
Simple and elaborated clinician reminder prompts for human papillomavirus vaccination: a randomized clinical trial.
Acad Pediatr
.
2018
;
18
(
2S
):
S66
S71
[PubMed]
17
Hopfer
S
.
Effects of a narrative HPV vaccination intervention aimed at reaching college women: a randomized controlled trial.
Prev Sci
.
2012
;
13
(
2
):
173
182
18
DiClemente
RJ
,
Murray
CC
,
Graham
T
,
Still
J
.
Overcoming barriers to HPV vaccination: a randomized clinical trial of a culturally-tailored, media intervention among African American girls.
Hum Vaccin Immunother
.
2015
;
11
(
12
):
2883
2894
[PubMed]
19
Anand
V
,
Carroll
AE
,
Biondich
PG
,
Dugan
TM
,
Downs
SM
.
Pediatric decision support using adapted Arden Syntax.
Artif Intell Med
.
2015
;
S0933–3657(15)00123–2
[PubMed]
20
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
. About immunization information systems. 2012. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html. Accessed May 16, 2017
21
CHIRP
. Children and Hoosier Immunization Registry Program. Available at: https://chirp.in.gov/. Accessed May 16, 2017
22
Dixon
BE
. What is health information exchange? In:
Dixon
BE
, ed.
Health Information Exchange: Navigating and Managing a Network of Health Information Systems
.
Waltham, MA
:
Academic Press
;
2016
:
3
20
23
Gerend
MA
,
Shepherd
JE
.
Predicting human papillomavirus vaccine uptake in young adult women: comparing the health belief model and theory of planned behavior.
Ann Behav Med
.
2012
;
44
(
2
):
171
180
[PubMed]
24
Dixon
BE
,
Kasting
ML
,
Wilson
S
,
Kulkarni
A
,
Zimet
GD
,
Downs
SM
.
Health care providers’ perceptions of use and influence of clinical decision support reminders: qualitative study following a randomized trial to improve HPV vaccination rates.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
.
2017
;
17
(
1
):
119
[PubMed]
25
Hanley
JA
,
Negassa
A
,
Edwardes
MD
,
Forrester
JE
.
Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation.
Am J Epidemiol
.
2003
;
157
(
4
):
364
375
[PubMed]
26
Dixon
B
,
Grannis
S
. Public health informatics infrastructure. In:
Magnuson
JA
,
Fu
JPC
, eds.
Public Health Informatics and Information Systems
.
London, United Kingdom
:
Springer London
;
2014
:
69
88
27
Grannis
S
,
Dixon
BE
,
Brand
B
.
Leveraging Immunization Data in the E-Health Era: Exploring the Value, Tradeoffs, and Future Directions of Immunization Data Exchange
.
Atlanta, GA
:
Public Health Informatics Institute
;
2010
28
Badawy
SM
,
Kuhns
LM
.
Texting and mobile phone app interventions for improving adherence to preventive behavior in adolescents: a systematic review.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
.
2017
;
5
(
4
):
e50
[PubMed]
29
Nazi
KM
,
Hogan
TP
,
Woods
SS
,
Simon
SR
,
Ralston
JD
. Consumer health informatics: engaging and empowering patients and families. In:
Finnell
JT
,
Dixon
BE
, eds.
Clinical Informatics Study Guide: Text and Review
. 1st ed.
Zurich, Switzerland
:
Springer International Publishing
;
2016
:
459
500

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Zimet has been an investigator on investigator-initiated research funded by Merck & Co, Inc, and Roche, received travel funding from Merck & Co, Inc, to present research at a scientific conference, and received an honorarium for participation in an adolescent immunization initiative meeting. Dr Lindsay is an employee of Merck & Co, Inc. Dr Downs is a cofounder of Digital Health Solutions, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, a company created to license and market the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation system; the other authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation system is the intellectual property of Indiana University. Dr Downs is a cofounder of Digital Health Solutions, LLC, a company created to license and market Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation. This company was founded after the completion of the study; the other authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.