Priority Populations Toolkits: Enhancing researcher readiness to work with priority populations

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Integrating special and underserved populations in translational research: Environmental scan of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hubs

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities and rendered them acutely more visible. Special and underrepresented populations need to be fully integrated into the translational research process from the very beginning and all the way through. This article presents findings and rapid analysis mini-case studies from the Environmental Scan (E-Scan) of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, specific to the goal of integrating special and vulnerable populations in different institutional research settings. In our discussion of the findings and case studies, we flexibly apply local adaptive capacity framework concepts and characteristics, and, whenever possible, we present ideas on how to enhance capacity in those areas, based on the challenges and practices identified through the E-Scan. Although the past year has recorded incredible achievements in vaccine development, clinical trials, diagnostics, and overall biomedical research, these successes continue to be hampered by our inability to turn them into achievements equally available and accessible to all populations.

Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity-the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study

CONTEXT

To compare rural independent and health system primary care practices with urban practices to external practice facilitation support in terms of recruitment, readiness, engagement, retention, and change in quality improvement (QI) capacity and quality metric performance.

METHODS

The setting consisted of 135 small or medium-sized primary care practices participating in the Healthy Hearts Northwest quality improvement initiative. The practices were stratified by geography, rural or urban, and by ownership (independent [physician-owned] or system-owned [health/hospital system]). The quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey tool was used to measure QI at baseline and after 12 months of practice facilitation. Changes in 3 clinical quality measures (CQMs)-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control, and tobacco use screening and cessation-were measured at baseline in 2015 and follow-up in 2017.

RESULTS

Rural practices were more likely to enroll in the study, with 1 out of 3.5 rural recruited practices enrolled, compared with 1 out of 7 urban practices enrolled. Rural independent practices had the lowest QI capacity at baseline, making the largest gain in establishing a regular QI process involving cross-functional teams. Rural independent practices made the greatest improvement in meeting the BP control CQM, from 55.5% to 66.1% (P ≤ .001) and the smoking cessation metric, from 72.3% to 86.7% (P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Investing practice facilitation and sustained QI strategies in rural independent practices, where the need is high and resources are low, will yield benefits that outweigh centrally prescribed models.