Randomized Trial of Two Dissemination Strategies for a Skin Cancer Prevention Program in Aquatic Settings

"Beach Lifeguards' Sun Exposure and Sun Protection in Spain"

BACKGROUND

Sunburn is the main avoidable cause of skin cancer. Beach lifeguards spend many hours exposed to the effects of solar radiation during their work day, precisely at times of the year when levels of solar irradiation are highest. The aim of this study is to quantify the risk to beach lifeguards of sun exposure.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the Western Costa del Sol, southern Spain, during the summer of 2018. The research subjects were recruited during a skin cancer prevention course for beach lifeguards. All participants were invited to complete a questionnaire on their habits, attitudes, and knowledge related to sun exposure. In addition, ten were specially monitored using personal dosimeters for three consecutive days, and the results were recorded in a photoprotection diary. A descriptive analysis (mean and standard deviation for the quantitative variables) was performed, and inter-group differences were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifteen lifeguards completed the questionnaire, and 109 met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. The mean age was 23.8 years (SD: 5.1), 78.0% were male, 71.5% were phototype III or IV (Fitzpatrick's phototype), and 77.1% had experienced at least one painful sunburn during the previous summer. The mean daily personal ultraviolet exposure per day, the minimal erythema dose, and the standard erythema dose, in J/m2, were 634.7 [standard deviation (SD): 356.2], 2.5 (SD: 1.4) and 6.35 (SD: 3.6), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Beach lifeguards receive very high doses of solar radiation during the work day and experience correspondingly high rates of sunburn. Intervention strategies to modify their sun exposure behavior and working environment are necessary to reduce the risk of skin cancer for these workers and to promote early diagnosis of the disease.

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Promoting guideline-based cancer genetic risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in ethnically and geographically diverse cancer survivors: Rationale and design of a 3-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although national guidelines for cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have been available for over two decades, less than half of high-risk women have accessed these services, especially underserved minority and rural populations. Identification of high-risk individuals is crucial for cancer survivors and their families to benefit from biomedical advances in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment.

METHODS

This paper describes community-engaged formative research and the protocol of the ongoing randomized 3-arm controlled Genetic Risk Assessment for Cancer Education and Empowerment (GRACE) trial. Ethnically and geographically diverse breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased risk for hereditary cancer predisposition who have not had a CGRA are recruited through the three statewide cancer registries. The specific aims are to: 1) compare the effectiveness of a targeted intervention (TP) vs. a tailored counseling and navigation(TCN) intervention vs. usual care (UC) on CGRA utilization at 6 months post-diagnosis (primary outcome); compare the effectiveness of the interventions on genetic counseling uptake at 12 months after removal of cost barriers (secondary outcome); 2) examine potential underlying theoretical mediating and moderating mechanisms; and 3) conduct a cost evaluation to guide dissemination strategies.

DISCUSSION

The ongoing GRACE trial addresses an important translational gap by developing and implementing evidence-based strategies to promote guideline-based care and reduce disparities in CGRA utilization among ethnically and geographically diverse women. If effective, these interventions have the potential to reach a large number of high-risk families and reduce disparities through broad dissemination.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03326713; clinicaltrials.gov.

Skin cancer interventions across the cancer control continuum: Review of technology, environment, and theory

The National Cancer Institute's Skin Cancer Intervention across the Cancer Control Continuum model was developed to summarize research and identify gaps concerning skin cancer interventions. We conducted a mapping review to characterize whether behavioral interventions addressing skin cancer prevention and control from 2000 to 2015 included (1) technology, (2) environmental manipulations (policy and/or built environment), and (3) a theoretical basis. We included 86 studies with a randomized controlled or quasi-experimental design that targeted behavioral intervention in skin cancer for children and/or adults; seven of these were dissemination or implementation studies. Of the interventions described in the remaining 79 articles, 57 promoted only prevention behaviors (e.g., ultraviolet radiation protection), five promoted only detection (e.g., skin examinations), 10 promoted both prevention and detection, and seven focused on survivorship. Of the 79 non-dissemination studies, two-thirds used some type of technology (n=52; 65.8%). Technology specific to skin cancer was infrequently used: UVR photography was used in 15.2% of studies (n=12), reflectance spectroscopy was used in 12.7% (n=10), and dermatoscopes (n=1) and dosimeters (n=2) were each used in less than 3%. Ten studies (12.7%) targeted the built environment. Fifty-two (65.8%) of the studies included theory-based interventions. The most common theories were Social Cognitive Theory (n=20; 25.3%), Health Belief Model (n=17; 21.5%), and the Theory of Planned Behavior/Reasoned Action (n=12; 15.2%). Results suggest that skin cancer specific technology and environmental manipulations are underutilized in skin cancer behavioral interventions. We discuss implications of these results for researchers developing skin cancer behavioral interventions.

Skin cancer interventions across the cancer control continuum: A review of experimental evidence (1/1/2000-6/30/2015) and future research directions

While the general efficacy of skin cancer interventions have been reviewed, employing the cancer control continuum would be useful to identify research gaps at specific cancer control points. We characterized the intervention evidence base for specific behavioral targets (e.g., tanning, sun protection, screening) and clinically related targets (e.g., sunburn, skin exams, cancers) at each point in the cancer control continuum. The review included articles published from 1/1/2000-6/30/15 that had an experimental design and targeted behavioral intervention in skin cancer (e.g., specific behaviors or clinically related targets). The search yielded 86 articles, including seven dissemination studies. Of the 79 non-dissemination studies, 57 exclusively targeted primary prevention behaviors, five exclusively targeted screening, 10 targeted both detection and prevention, and eight addressed cancer survivorship. Among prevention studies (n=67), 29 (43%) targeted children and 38 (57%) targeted adults. Of the 15 screening studies, nine targeted high-risk groups (e.g., men aged ≥50 years) and six targeted the general population. Although research has focused on skin cancer prevention, empirically validated interventions are still needed for youth engaged in indoor tanning and for behavioral interventions to pursue change in clinically relevant targets. Research must also address detection among those at highest risk for skin cancer, amelioration of emotional distress attendant to diagnosis and treatment, and survivorship concerns. We discuss essential qualities and opportunities for intervention development and translational research to inform the field.

The Sustainability of Evidence-Based Interventions and Practices in Public Health and Health Care

There is strong interest in implementation science to address the gap between research and practice in public health. Research on the sustainability of evidence-based interventions has been growing rapidly. Sustainability has been defined as the continued use of program components at sufficient intensity for the sustained achievement of desirable program goals and population outcomes. This understudied area has been identified as one of the most significant translational research problems. Adding to this challenge is uncertainty regarding the extent to which intervention adaptation and evolution are necessary to address the needs of populations that differ from those in which interventions were originally tested or implemented. This review critically examines and discusses conceptual and methodological issues in studying sustainability, summarizes the multilevel factors that have been found to influence the sustainability of interventions in a range of public health and health care settings, and highlights key areas for future research.

Sun Protection Belief Clusters: Analysis of Amazon Mechanical Turk Data

This study aimed (i) to determine whether people could be differentiated on the basis of their sun protection belief profiles and individual characteristics and (ii) explore the use of a crowdsourcing web service for the assessment of sun protection beliefs. A sample of 500 adults completed an online survey of sun protection belief items using Amazon Mechanical Turk. A two-phased cluster analysis (i.e., hierarchical and non-hierarchical K-means) was utilized to determine clusters of sun protection barriers and facilitators. Results yielded three distinct clusters of sun protection barriers and three distinct clusters of sun protection facilitators. Significant associations between gender, age, sun sensitivity, and cluster membership were identified. Results also showed an association between barrier and facilitator cluster membership. The results of this study provided a potential alternative approach to developing future sun protection promotion initiatives in the population. Findings add to our knowledge regarding individuals who support, oppose, or are ambivalent toward sun protection and inform intervention research by identifying distinct subtypes that may best benefit from (or have a higher need for) skin cancer prevention efforts.