Community-Based Participatory Research Adds Value to the National Cancer Institute's Research Portfolio

An Analysis of Individual and Contextual-Level Disparities in Screening, Treatment, and Outcomes for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver and affects patients of all genders, races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic status. While the causes of HCC are numerous, the primary etiology is cirrhosis from alcohol and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and from infectious agents such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in the developing world. In patients at-risk for developing HCC, screening is recommended with ultrasound imaging and alpha fetoprotein laboratory tests. In socioeconomically vulnerable patients, however, individual-level barriers (eg, insurance status) and contextual-level disparities (eg, health facilities) may not be readily available, thus limiting screening. Additional challenges faced by racial/ethnic minorities can further challenge the spectrum of HCC care and lead to inadequate screening, delayed diagnosis, and unequal access to treatment. Efforts to improve these multilevel factors that lead to screening and treatment disparities are critical to overcoming challenges. Providing health insurance to those without access, improving societal challenges that confine patients to a lower socioeconomic status, and reducing challenges to seeking healthcare can decrease the morbidity and mortality of these patients. Additionally, engaging with communities and allowing them to collaborate in their own healthcare can also help to attenuate these inequities. Through collaborative multidisciplinary change, we can make progress in tackling disparities in vulnerable populations to achieve health equity

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.

Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors

Hispanic and Latino (HL) cancer survivors are at a critical disadvantage compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients regarding sociodemographic adversities and access to equitable treatment options. By 2030, there will be about four million HL cancer survivors in the U.S., representing nearly 20% of survivors in this country. Hispanics and Latinos are subjected to significant challenges in accessing and receiving equitable care relative to NHWs. Hispanics and Latinos also experience lower rates of health insurance and financial resources, limiting health care options. These disparities often originate from disparate social determinants of health, including lower funding for education and school programs, greater neighborhood stressors and violence, lower access to healthy and affordable food, and greater barriers to community health and exercise opportunities. Even among HL cancer survivors with proper access to health care, they experience disparate treatment options, including low inclusion in clinical trials and/or access to experimental therapies. A solution to these barriers necessitates complex and systemic changes that involve, for example, investing in public health programs, increasing the diversity and cultural awareness of the medical workforce, and promoting research opportunities such as clinical trials that are inclusive of HLs. Only through meaningful reform will equitable cancer care be available for all in the U.S. regardless of racial and/or ethnic background. This article reviews some of the critical social determinants of health and biases relevant to HL cancer survivors and provides recommendations for achieving cancer health equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Hispanics and Latinos experience a significant and often disproportionate cancer-related burden compared with non-Hispanic and Latino White individuals and other racial and ethnic groups. Meaningful reform to achieve health equity in oncology should focus on approaches to gaining trust among diverse patients, cultural and community sensitivity and engagement in oncology care and research, diversifying the workforce, and improving inclusion in clinical trial participation. Taken together, these recommendations can lead to exemplary and equitable care for all patients.

Overcoming Disparities in Cancer: A Need for Meaningful Reform for Hispanic and Latino Cancer Survivors

Hispanic and Latino (HL) cancer survivors are at a critical disadvantage compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients regarding sociodemographic adversities and access to equitable treatment options. By 2030, there will be about four million HL cancer survivors in the U.S., representing nearly 20% of survivors in this country. Hispanics and Latinos are subjected to significant challenges in accessing and receiving equitable care relative to NHWs. Hispanics and Latinos also experience lower rates of health insurance and financial resources, limiting health care options. These disparities often originate from disparate social determinants of health, including lower funding for education and school programs, greater neighborhood stressors and violence, lower access to healthy and affordable food, and greater barriers to community health and exercise opportunities. Even among HL cancer survivors with proper access to health care, they experience disparate treatment options, including low inclusion in clinical trials and/or access to experimental therapies. A solution to these barriers necessitates complex and systemic changes that involve, for example, investing in public health programs, increasing the diversity and cultural awareness of the medical workforce, and promoting research opportunities such as clinical trials that are inclusive of HLs. Only through meaningful reform will equitable cancer care be available for all in the U.S. regardless of racial and/or ethnic background. This article reviews some of the critical social determinants of health and biases relevant to HL cancer survivors and provides recommendations for achieving cancer health equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Hispanics and Latinos experience a significant and often disproportionate cancer-related burden compared with non-Hispanic and Latino White individuals and other racial and ethnic groups. Meaningful reform to achieve health equity in oncology should focus on approaches to gaining trust among diverse patients, cultural and community sensitivity and engagement in oncology care and research, diversifying the workforce, and improving inclusion in clinical trial participation. Taken together, these recommendations can lead to exemplary and equitable care for all patients.

Educating Hispanics About Clinical Trials and Biobanking

Hispanics are under-represented in clinical research. To ensure that the Hispanic population benefits from advances in public health and medicine, including personalized medicine, there is a need to increase their participation in clinical trials and biobanking. There is a great need for improving awareness and addressing concerns individuals may have about participation. The purpose of this study was to adapt, implement, and evaluate educational materials about clinical trials and biobanking for Hispanic individuals. We adapted existing materials based on focus group data. We then trained four promotoras de salud to deliver education to Hispanic adults in community settings in Houston, TX. The promotoras educated 101 Hispanic adults, 51 on biobanking and 50 on clinical trials. Study staff administered brief pre- and post-test questionnaires that measured benefits, barriers, norms, self-efficacy, and intention to participate in either clinical trials or biobanking. Our sample was predominately female (83%) and Spanish-speaking (69%) and made less than $25,000 a year (87%). This intervention increased perceived benefits of participating in biobanking and clinical trials, self-efficacy for donating biospecimens, and intention to participate in biobanking if invited. Perceived barriers to participating declined. This study demonstrated that brief education can result in improved perceptions and attitudes related to participation in biobanking and clinical trials, and could increase participation. Researchers and practitioners could use these educational materials to educate Hispanic community members on clinical research potentially increasing participation rates in the future.

Environmental Influences on Mammographic Breast Density in California: A Strategy to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk

State legislation in many U.S. states, including California, mandates informing women if they have dense breasts on screening mammography, meaning over half of their breast tissue is comprised of non-adipose tissue. Breast density is important to interpret screening sensitivity and is an established breast cancer risk factor. Environmental chemical exposures may play an important role in this, especially during key windows of susceptibility for breast development: in utero, during puberty, pregnancy, lactation, and the peri-menopause. There is a paucity of research, however, examining whether environmental chemical exposures are associated with mammographic breast density, and even less is known about environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility. Now, with clinical breast density scoring being reported routinely for mammograms, it is possible to find out, especially in California, where there are large study populations that can link environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility to breast density. Density scores are now available throughout the state through electronic medical records. We can link these with environmental chemical exposures via state-wide monitoring. Studying the effects of environmental exposure on breast density may provide valuable monitoring and etiologic data to inform strategies to reduce breast cancer risk.

Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed.