Community Members' Input into Cancer Prevention Campaign Development and Experience Being Featured in the Campaign

Co-designing nutrition interventions with consumers: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co-design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co-design in nutrition interventions.

METHODS

This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co-design and met the 'Collaborate' or 'Empower' levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co-design for (2) nutrition interventions.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co-design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co-design framework or approach was reported across the various studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumer co-design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co-design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review

Patient and public involvement can produce high-quality, relevant research that better addresses the needs of patients and their families. This systematic review investigated the nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research. Two patient representatives were involved as members of the review team. Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, Involve Evidence Library) were searched for English-language studies published 1995-March 2022. Titles/abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. For eligible studies, data were extracted on study characteristics, patient and public involvement (who, when, how, and impact on research outcomes), and reporting quality using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form. Of 4095 articles screened, 58 were eligible. Most research was from the United States (81%) and examined cancer screening or prevention (82%). Community members/organisations/public were the most involved (71%); fewer studies involved patients and/or carers (14%). Over half reported a high-level of involvement (i.e. partner and/or expert involvement), although this declined in later stages of the research cycle, e.g. data analysis. Common positive impacts included improved study design, research methods and recruitment, although most papers (62%) did not describe methods to determine impact. Reporting quality was sub-optimal, largely due to failure to consider challenges. This review found that high-level involvement of patients and the public in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research is feasible and has several advantages. However, improvements are needed to encourage involvement across the research cycle, and in evaluating and reporting its impact.

Process Evaluation of Cancer Prevention Media Campaigns in Appalachian Ohio

The purpose of this study is to provide process data from campaigns (2009-2010) to improve colorectal cancer (CRC; intervention) screening and fruit and vegetable (F&V; comparison) consumption in 12 Appalachian Ohio counties. County-specific campaigns included one billboard, posters, and articles for local newspapers. Participants in CRC screening counties who reported seeing CRC screening billboards had greater intention to talk to a doctor/nurse about screening in the next 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.71, 4.99]) and had twice the odds of talking to a doctor/nurse about screening in the past year (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.29, 3.60]) compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants in F&V counties who reported seeing F&V billboards had twice the odds (OR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.35, 3.84]) of talking to a doctor/nurse in the past year about F&Vs compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants who reported campaign exposure lived closer to the billboards compared to those who did not report campaign exposure (mean distance in miles from home to billboard: 8.8 vs. 10.9; p < .01). Most participants reported campaign messages were clear and important. Results suggest that partnering with community members to develop campaign materials is important to ensure cultural appropriateness and that exposure to the intervention components may affect health-related outcomes.

Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information about the correlates of completing all three cancer screening tests among women living in Appalachia.

METHODS

Cross-sectional telephone interviews were conducted (April-September 2013) among women (n = 637) ages 51 to 75 years from 12 Appalachia Ohio counties. Outcomes of within screening guidelines were verified by medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models identified correlates of being within guidelines for all three cancer screening tests.

RESULTS

Screening rates included mammography (32.1%), Pap test (36.1%), and a colorectal cancer test (30.1%). Only 8.6% of women were within guidelines for all tests. Having had a check-up in the past 2 years and having received a screening recommendation were significantly related to being within guidelines for all three tests (P < 0.01). Participants with higher annual household incomes [$60,000+; OR, 3.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.49-8.33] and conditions requiring regular medical visits (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.29-7.74) were more likely to be within guidelines for all three screening tests.

CONCLUSION

Less than 10% of women had completed screening within guidelines for all three screening tests. Regular contact with the health care system and higher incomes were significant predictors of being within guidelines.

IMPACT

Within guidelines rates for the three recommended cancer screening tests are low among women in Appalachia Ohio. This finding illustrates the need for innovative interventions to improve rates of multiple cancer screening tests.