↓ Skip to main content

Why is announcement training more effective than conversation training for introducing HPV vaccination? A theory-based investigation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why is announcement training more effective than conversation training for introducing HPV vaccination? A theory-based investigation
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0743-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teri L. Malo, Megan E. Hall, Noel T. Brewer, Christine R. Lathren, Melissa B. Gilkey

Abstract

Improving healthcare providers' communication about HPV vaccination is critical to increasing uptake. We previously demonstrated that training providers to use presumptive announcements to introduce HPV vaccination improved uptake, whereas training them to use participatory conversations had no effect. To understand how communication training changed provider perceptions and communication practices, we evaluated intermediate outcomes and process measures from our randomized clinical trial, with a particular focus on identifying mechanisms that might explain the announcement training's impact. In 2015, a physician educator delivered 1-h in-clinic HPV vaccination recommendation trainings at 20 primary care clinics in North Carolina serving 11,578 patients age 11 or 12. Clinics were randomized to receive training to use "announcements" that presume parents are ready to vaccinate or "conversations" that invite dialog about vaccination. Training participants were 83 HPV vaccine providers. Pre- and post-training surveys assessed constructs from the theory of planned behavior (TPB), including providers' attitudes and subjective norms about HPV vaccination and their perceived behavioral control to recommend HPV vaccination. Surveys also assessed providers' perceptions of the announcement and conversation communication strategies. Both trainings improved TPB-related constructs, including providers' positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control to recommend the vaccine (all p < .001, Cohen's d = .62-.90). Furthermore, in both trainings, the amount of time providers reported needing to discuss HPV vaccination with parents decreased from pre-training to 1-month follow-up (mean = 3.8 vs. 3.2 min, p = .01, d = .28). However, announcement trainings outperformed conversation trainings on other measures. For example, providers who received announcement training more often reported that the communication strategy saved them time, was easy to use, helped them promote HPV vaccination as routine care, and increased HPV vaccination coverage in their clinics (all p < .05; d = .44-.60). Both announcement and conversation trainings improved providers' HPV vaccine-related perceptions. However, providers viewed announcements as easier to use and more effective, which may help to explain the success of this training approach. Future provider communication interventions should consider implementation outcomes, including acceptability, alongside more traditional TPB constructs. clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02377843 . Registered on February 27, 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 63 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 70 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,915,364
of 24,144,324 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,136
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,095
of 331,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,144,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.