Katharine Head
Permanent URI for this collection
What is motivating parents' COVID-19 vaccination decisions? A Statewide Survey of Indiana Parents
The COVID-19 vaccine is already available to children over 12 years old, and it will soon be available for children 5- 11 years old. Professor Katharine Head and her research partner, Professor Nir Menachemi, wanted to understand Hoosier parents’ perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess their intentions to get their children vaccinated. This sort of information can assist state and local governments, public health agencies, and community organizations in crafting targeted educational campaigns and other strategies that will assure high uptake of the vaccine among children.
They worked with the Indiana Department of Health and the Indiana Department of Education to recruit parents and caregivers across Indiana to fill out a web-based survey that assessed their perceptions about the COVID-19 vaccination. Over 10,000 parents filled out the anonymous survey! Some of the key findings include that only about 45% of parents have or intend to vaccinate their children, while about 42% do not intend to vaccinate. About 13% of parents who said they would “wait and see.” Of those wait and see parents, the researchers found some interesting perceptions about the vaccine that may suggest ways they can develop targeted educational messages to hopefully encourage them to get vaccinated, such as their perceptions of safety, perceptions of what other parents are doing, and perceptions about what their healthcare provider would want them to do. Based on these findings, they have developed a set of evidence-based suggestions for designing parent and family focused COVID-19 vaccination interventions that can be implemented in communities across Indiana.
Professor Head's translation of research into strategies to increase the number of vaccinated children in the fight against COVID-19 is another excellent example of how IUPUI's faculty members are TRANSLATING their RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Katharine Head and Nir Menachemi Research Introduction(Center for Translating Research Into Practice, IU Indianapolis, 2021-09-24) Head, Katharine; Menachemi, NirProfessors Katharine Head and Nir Menachemi briefly discuss their translational research that deals with Indiana parents' motivational reasons to get their children vaccinated against COVID-19.Item Persistent Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake: Knowledge and Sociodemographic Determinants of Papanicolaou and Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Women in the United States(Sage, 2020) Johnson, Nicole L.; Head, Katharine J.; Foxworthy Scott, Susanna; Zimet, Gregory D.; Communication Studies, School of Liberal ArtsObjectives: Cervical cancer is the second-most common type of cancer among women aged 15-44, and racial, ethnic, and economic disparities exist in survival rates despite widely available screening tests and early treatment options. The objective of this study was to describe the association among knowledge, sociodemographic characteristics, and cervical cancer screening, with the goal of developing interventions to prevent cervical cancer in populations at risk of the disease. Methods: In 2017, we conducted a nationwide survey of women in the United States aged ≥18 who had ever received a Papanicolaou (Pap) test (N = 630). We conducted t tests and one-way analysis of variance to determine sociodemographic differences (age, education, race, ethnicity, income, type of health insurance) in knowledge about cervical cancer screening (Pap test and human papillomavirus [HPV] test). We used logistic regressions to define significant determinants of cervical cancer screening behaviors in the previous 5 years. Results: Of 629 respondents, 407 (64.7%) had an annual household income <$30 000, and 322 of 536 (60.1%) respondents had government-provided health insurance. Of 630 women who had ever had a Pap test, 425 (67.5%) had an HPV test. Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women were more likely than Hispanic and non-Hispanic black women (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.12-4.54; P = .02) and women with government-provided health insurance (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P = .03) were more likely than women with private health insurance to have received a Pap test in the previous 5 years. Knowledge of HPV was a significant predictor of having received an HPV test in the previous 5 years (OR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.54; P < .001). Conclusion: Disparities in cervical cancer screening among sociodemographic groups of women suggest the need for targeted interventions to improve knowledge about Pap and HPV tests.Item Efficacy of tailored messages to improve behavioral intent to accept HPV vaccination among mothers may be moderated by sociodemographics(Elsevier, 2021-05-29) Feemster, Kristen A.; Head, Katharine J.; Panozzo, Catherine A.; O'Dell, Sean M.; Zimet, Gregory D.; Kornides, Melanie L.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineWe assessed differences in response to a tailored recommendation intervention for HPV vaccine by participants’ sociodemographic characteristics in this exploratory sub-analysis of a larger web-based, randomized-controlled trial on tailored messaging among mothers with low intent to vaccinate their 11–14-year-old child against HPV. The intervention consisted of pre-recorded video messages tailored to 1–5 common concerns about HPV vaccine. In these exploratory analyses, we used generalized linear models to assess differences in post-intervention intent across intervention arms, stratified by sociodemographic characteristics among 496 trial participants. We found significantly higher post-intervention intent in the intervention participants versus the control group among mothers: 1) with younger children; 2) with white vs. black children; 3) with Non-Hispanic children; 4) who were younger; 5) with some college or vocational training; with household incomes of ≥$100,000; and 7) with 1–2 children. Our findings of effect modification by certain sociodemographic factors such as age, race/ethnicity, and household income should be considered when designing similar tailored messaging interventions.Item From “A Spoonful of Sugar” to Operation Warp Speed: COVID-19 Vaccines and Their Metaphors(Harvard Law School, 2020-12-15) Silverman, Ross D.; Head, Katharine J.; Beckman, Emily; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthWe must remain cognizant of the many ways metaphors may distort, divide, or misrepresent important details.Item The effects of message framing and healthcare provider recommendation on adult hepatitis B vaccination: A randomized controlled trial(Elsevier, 2019-08-09) Kasting, Monica L.; Head, Katharine J.; Cox, Dena; Cox, Anthony D.; Zimet, Gregory D.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineMany adults in the U.S. do not receive recommended vaccines, and the research literature remains inconclusive on the best communication strategies for increasing this behavior. This study examined the association of message framing (gained-framed vs. loss-framed vs. control), and healthcare provider (HCP) recommendation (offered vs. recommended) on uptake of adult hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in a high risk population using a 3×2 block design randomized controlled trial. Fear of shots, fear of vaccines, and perceived message framing were examined in secondary analyses. Of the 1,747 participants, 47.7% (n=833) received 0 doses of HBV vaccine, 27.8% (n=485) received 1 dose, 10.4% received 2 doses, and 14.1% received all 3 recommended doses. There was not a significant interaction between message framing and HCP recommendation (p =.59). Mean number of doses received by the gain-framed group (m=.96) was not significantly different from the loss-framed group (m=.97, RR=.99, 95% CI=.88–1.12). However, those receiving any framing message received significantly more doses (m= .96) than those in the control condition (m=.81, RR=1.17, 95%CI=1.06–1.31). Participants who received a HCP recommendation received significantly more vaccine doses (m=.95) than those in the vaccine-offered condition (mean=.82, RR=1.16, 95%CI=1.05–1.28). These results suggest there is no difference in vaccine uptake between gain-frame and loss-frame messages, but both are better than a control message. These results also support advising HCP to provide a strong recommendation for vaccinations beyond merely offering it to patients. This study has implications for vaccine uptake beyond HBV, and can inform future research on effective vaccine communication research.Item Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults(Elsevier, 2021) Sturm, Lynne; Kasting, Monica L.; Head, Katharine J.; Hartsong, Jane A.; Zimet, Gregory D.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineIntroduction Decisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did. Methods In May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome. Results Among participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23–2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88–2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49–2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36–0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45–2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15–1.90). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination.Item The Influence of Everyday Interpersonal Communication on the Medical Encounter: An Extension of Street’s Ecological Model(Taylor & Francis, 2018-06-03) Head, Katharine J.; Bute, Jennifer J.; Communication Studies, School of Liberal ArtsStreet’s ecological model has shaped the research-examining communication during medical encounters for over a decade. Although the model accounts for the variety of contexts that shape the conversations in which patients and health-care providers engage, the model does not adequately address the way that everyday conversations about health carry over into patient–provider interactions. In this essay, we propose an extension of Street’s model that adds the context of everyday communication about health as a contributing factor in the medical encounter. We support the need for this extension by discussing research that points to the ways these conversations with our social network influence communication during the medical encounter and propose new areas for research based on this extension.Item Public perceptions of the effectiveness of recommended non-pharmaceutical intervention behaviors to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2(Public Library of Science (PLOS), 2020-11-04) Kasting, Monica L.; Head, Katharine J.; Hartsock, Jane A.; Sturm, Lynne; Zimet, Gregory D.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health threat, both in scope and response. With no vaccine available, the public is advised to practice non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including social distancing, mask-wearing, and washing hands. However, little is known about public perceptions of the effectiveness of these measures, and high perceived effectiveness is likely to be critical in order to achieve widespread adoption of NPI. Methods: In May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among U.S. adults (N = 3,474). The primary outcome was a six-item measure assessing perceived effectiveness of recommended behaviors to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The sample was divided into "higher" and "lower" perceived effectiveness groups. Covariates included demographics, healthcare characteristics, and health beliefs. Variables that were significant at p<0.01 in bivariate analyses were entered into a multivariable logistic regression and a best-fit model was created using a cutoff of p<0.01 to stay in the model. Results: Mean age was 45.5 years and most participants were non-Hispanic White (63%) and female (52.4%). The high perceived effectiveness group was slightly larger than the low perceived effectiveness group (52.7% vs. 47.3%). Almost all health belief variables were significant in the best-fit regression model. COVID-19-related worry (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.02), and perceived threat to physical health (aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.20-1.45) were positively associated with perceived effectiveness while perceived severity of COVID-19 (0.84; 95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and perceived likelihood of infection (0.85; 95% CI = 0.77-0.94) switched directions in the adjusted model and were negatively associated with perceived effectiveness. Conclusions: This research indicates people generally believe NPI are effective, but there was variability based on health beliefs and there are mixed rates of engagement in these behaviors. Public health efforts should focus on increasing perceived severity and threat of SARS-CoV-2-related disease, while promoting NPI as effective in reducing threat.Item Associations between HPV vaccination among women and their 11–14-year-old children(Taylor & Francis, 2019-01-07) Kornides, Melanie; Head, Katharine J.; Feemster, Kristen; Zimet, Gregory D.; Panozzo, Catherine A.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineThe human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been available in the United States for over a decade. We sought to examine the associations between self-reported receipt of HPV vaccination among women and their 11–14-year-old children in 27 low-coverage states. Among the 3,261 mothers we surveyed, 18% reported receiving ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine. A significantly higher proportion of vaccinated women reported vaccination of their children compared to unvaccinated women (83% vs. 56%, p < .001). In multivariable logistic regression, vaccinated women (vs. unvaccinated) had 3.58 (95% CI: 2.81–4.56) times the adjusted-odds of vaccinating their children (≥1 dose HPV vaccine). Among unvaccinated children, vaccinated mothers (vs. unvaccinated) had 3.32 (95% CI: 2.09–5.26) times the adjusted odds of high intention to vaccinate their children in the next 12 months. We did not observe associations between mothers’ vaccination confidence and their vaccination status. We conclude that mothers who received ≥1 dose of HPV vaccine may be more likely to initiate or highly intend to initiate the HPV vaccine series for their children. This may have important implications for meeting population goals for HPV vaccination coverage as an increasing proportion of mothers are likely to be vaccinated over time.Item Are Health Care Professionals Prepared to Implement Human Papillomavirus Testing? A Review of Psychosocial Determinants of Human Papillomavirus Test Acceptability in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening(Liebert, 2020-03) Tatar, Ovidiu; Wade, Kristina; McBride, Emily; Thompson, Erika; Head, Katharine J.; Perez, Samara; Shapiro, Gilla K.; Waller, Jo; Zimet, Gregory; Rosberger, Zeev; Communication Studies, School of Liberal ArtsBackground: Guidelines for cervical cancer screening have been updated to include human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, which is more sensitive compared to cytology in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Because of its increased sensitivity, a negative HPV test is more reassuring for a woman that she is at low risk for precancerous cervical lesions than a negative Pap test. Prompted by the inadequate translation of HPV test-based screening guidelines into practice, we aimed to synthesize the literature regarding health care providers (HCPs) knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to HPV testing and the influence of psychosocial factors on HCPs acceptability of HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health, and Web of Science for journal articles from January 1, 1980 to July 25, 2018. A narrative synthesis of HCPs knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to HPV testing is provided. Informed by the Patient Pathway framework, we used deductive thematic analysis to synthesize the influence of psychosocial factors on HCPs acceptability of HPV testing. Results: The most important HCP knowledge gaps are related to the superior sensitivity of the HPV test and age-specific guideline recommendations for HPV testing. Thirty to fifty percent of HCPs are not compliant with guideline recommendations for HPV testing, for example, screening at shorter intervals than recommended. Barriers, facilitators, and contradictory evidence of HCPs' acceptability of the HPV test are grouped by category: (1) factors related to the HCP; (2) patient intrinsic factors; (3) factors corresponding to HCP's practice environment; and (4) health care system factors. Conclusions: HCP's adherence to guidelines for HPV testing in cervical cancer screening is suboptimal and could be improved by specialty organizations ensuring consistency across guidelines. Targeted educational interventions to address barriers of HPV test acceptability identified in this review may facilitate the translation of HPV testing recommendations into practice.