exams (79% vs. 67%; p  .001), school physicals (81% vs. 65%; p  .001), and sports physicals (60% vs. 50%; p  .01). In contrast, PEDs were less likely than FPs to discuss sexual health during visits for chronic conditions (percent saying “never” or “rarely”: 69% vs. 58%; p  .001). There were no differences related to acute care visits. Overall, physicians assigned a lower priority for vac- cinating males “well before” sexual activity (M = 7.3) than for males considering sexual activity (M = 9.1) or already sexually active (M = 9.1); p  .001. History of any STD was prioritized the highest (M = 9.2) compared to no history of STDs (M = 8.4), history of genital or anal warts (M = 8.5), or history of anal or penile dysplasia/cancer (M = 8.3); p  .001. PEDs and FPs did not differ in prioritization scores. Conclusions: Among physicians in this study, those who dis- cussed sexual health with male adolescents often did so during routine examinations and school/sports physicals. Although PEDs were more likely than FPs to have these conversations at most visit types, FPs were more inclined to discuss sexual health during visits for chronic conditions. Intent to vaccinate against HPV was higher when the physician believed the male patient was considering sexual activity, was sexually active, or had a history of STDs. This is consistent with findings that physicians are less likely to discuss HPV vaccination or vaccinate younger adolescent females. Self-reported anticipated HPV vaccination practices may vary from actual practice. However, it is important for health care providers to vaccinate early in adolescence, before either males or females consider engaging in sexual activity. Sources of Support: Merck and Co., Inc. 20. PARENTS’ “FOCUS” ON FLU IMMUNIZATION IN SCHOOLS Jean Doak, PhD 1 , Mary Short, PhD 2 , Jessica Tung, JD 1 , Amy Middleman, MD, MSEd, MPH 1 . 1 Baylor College of Medicine 2 University of Houston Clearlake Purpose: To determine parental attitudes regarding perceived advantages and drawbacks of and potential implementation strategies for school-located influenza (flu) immunization programs (SLII). Methods: Five focus groups (6-9 per group; n = 37) were conducted among parent/guardians from 1 elementary, 2 mid- dle and 2 high schools in a large public school system in May 2010. Schools were chosen for student diversity. Fliers were posted and/or sent home. Groups were conducted in English. Each participant consented and provided demographics. After initial questions regarding awareness of flu and the vaccine, new CDC influenza vaccine recommendations and available flu vaccine delivery methods were reviewed. Two focus group methods were used per group: open-ended forums and nom- inal group techniques. Research was IRB approved by the in- vestigators’ institution and the participating school district. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed. Framework analysis was used for all “open-ended” data. Group content was coded into themes; coding was reviewed for accuracy by 2 investigators. Saturation of content was found among groups. Results: Thirty-two (87%) were female, 20 (54%) black, 17 (46%) white, 14 (38%) Hispanic, 15 (41%) had Medicaid/CHIP, 84% had some college education, 27 (73%) were mothers. Ages were 33-58 years old. All participants had heard of the flu and flu vaccine. Benefits to SLIIs were ranked, in order, as: convenience; knowledge that there is enough vaccine; decreased cost; curb outbreaks/ decrease or stop the spread of illness; child not having to miss school; parents not having to miss work; decreased sick days for the child; confidence that the child will be vaccinated. Drawbacks were ranked as: child may experience side effects/ reaction from vaccine; uncertainty re: qualifications of person administering vaccine; potential mistakes; organizational diffi- culties for schools; peer pressure; parent not being present; con- cerns about unsanitary conditions; not knowing the vaccine manufacturer. Groups ranked factors that would increase partic- ipation in an SLII as: decreased/no cost; option of parent being present; knowing qualifications of person administering vac- cines; perception of “choice” to participate; having a doctor pres- ent; health benefits for child(ren); decreased time missed from work/school; knowing program schedule; ability to ask ques- tions beforehand; adequate vaccine supply. Groups ranked fac- tors that would decrease participation as: concern school could not treat side effects; not knowing the vaccine manufacturer; lack of information about vaccine; not having qualified people administering vaccine; unnecessary vaccination; concerns re: poor handling, storage, expiration of vaccine; inability to have parent present; cost to family; child’s fear; organizational diffi- culties for school; if child does not know person administering vaccine. Twenty-three (62%) participants reported that delivery method (intranasal vs. injection) would influence participation in a SLII. Group responses did not vary significantly based on stu- dent age. Conclusions: Parents/guardians have a broad array of ideas about participation in SLIIs ranging from personal conve- nience to an awareness of public health benefits (herd immu- nity). Willingness to have their child participate in SLIIs ap- pears to be related to issues of trust, need for information about the process, cost, and the vaccine delivery method. Sources of Support: MedImmune and MCHB Grant. 21. HPV VACCINATION IN THE SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION: CAREGIVERS’ IMPRESSIONS Paula Cody, MD 2 , Sarah Lerand, MD, MPH 1 , Jenny Schroeder, BS 3 , Melodee Nugent, MA 2 . 1 Aurora Medical Group 2 Medical College of WI 3 Medical College of Wisconsin Purpose: Expand literature on HPV vaccine acceptability by describing caregiver knowledge and acceptance of HPV vacci- nation of females with special health care needs. Methods: In 2009, a convenience sample of parents of children with special health care needs was recruited from 3 hospital- based clinics in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to complete a confi- dential, written questionnaire after informed consent was ob- tained from the individual completing the survey. Caregivers of females aged 9-26 years who has a disability as classified under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were eligible to participate. Demographic variables of the par- ent (gender, race/ethnicity, number of children in household), demographic variables of the child (age, score from validated parent-reported Child’s Function Disability Inventory to assess the parent’s view of the severity of the child’s condition on their daily activity, HPV vaccination status of the patient), S28 Poster Abstracts / 48 (2011) S18 –S120