A Community Health Advisor Program to Reduce Cancer Screening Disparities in the Deep South and Appalachia: The American Cancer Society's CHA Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer disparities continue to exist in the United States. Community health advisors (CHAs) can play a critical role in addressing cancer disparities. The American Cancer Society (ACS) implemented a 3-year pilot CHA program in the South based on an evidence-based program to increase breast cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: Evaluation assessed the extent to which ACS successfully implemented the program. Quantitative data were tracked and reported by ACS staff, and qualitative data were collected through focus groups and interviews with volunteer participants. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The pilot was implemented in 28 communities in nine states. ACS staff recruited volunteer community network partners (CNPs) as local advisory groups, and volunteer CHAs to conduct outreach, education, and screening navigation. MEASURES: Outcome measures included number of individuals educated and screened, and number of communities reaching education and screening targets. Process measures included number of volunteers recruited, number of communities reaching recruitment targets, and implementation process, challenges, and successes. RESULTS: A total of 383 CHAs were recruited and recruitment goals were met in 68%; 31,439 individuals were educated, and 93% of communities reached education goals. In all, 5,056 individuals were screened, but screening goals were attained in only 36% of communities. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrates the ability of ACS to adapt and disseminate an evidence-based program to fit into its volunteer-based outreach model. ACS built community network partnerships, recruited a cadre of volunteers, and trained them to conduct education and screening navigation.

Perspectives on cancer health disparities in West Virginia.

"Perspectives on Cancer Health Disparities in West Virginia" provides an overview of the factors that lead to health disparities in general, to the burden of breast and other cancers in our state, and highlights the deep-rooted values and characteristics that will help communities and their partners achieve parity.

Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients.

In December 2017, the National Academy of Neuropsychology convened an interorganizational Summit on Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients in Denver, Colorado. The Summit brought together representatives of a broad range of stakeholders invested in the care of older adults to focus on the topic of cognitive health and aging. Summit participants specifically examined questions of who should be screened for cognitive impairment and how they should be screened in medical settings. This is important in the context of an acute illness given that the presence of cognitive impairment can have significant implications for care and for the management of concomitant diseases as well as pose a major risk factor for dementia. Participants arrived at general principles to guide future screening approaches in medical populations and identified knowledge gaps to direct future research. Key learning points of the summit included: recognizing the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the value of assessing current and baseline cognition; emphasizing that any screening tool must be appropriately normalized and validated in the population in which it is used to obtain accurate information, including considerations of language, cultural factors, and education; and recognizing the great potential, with appropriate caveats, of electronic health records to augment cognitive screening and tracking of changes in cognitive health over time.

Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients.

In December 2017, the National Academy of Neuropsychology convened an interorganizational Summit on Population Health Solutions for Assessing Cognitive Impairment in Geriatric Patients in Denver, Colorado. The Summit brought together representatives of a broad range of stakeholders invested in the care of older adults to focus on the topic of cognitive health and aging. Summit participants specifically examined questions of who should be screened for cognitive impairment and how they should be screened in medical settings. This is important in the context of an acute illness given that the presence of cognitive impairment can have significant implications for care and for the management of concomitant diseases as well as pose a major risk factor for dementia. Participants arrived at general principles to guide future screening approaches in medical populations and identified knowledge gaps to direct future research. Key learning points of the summit included: recognizing the importance of educating patients and healthcare providers about the value of assessing current and baseline cognition;emphasizing that any screening tool must be appropriately normalized and validated in the population in which it is used to obtain accurate information, including considerations of language, cultural factors, and education; andrecognizing the great potential, with appropriate caveats, of electronic health records to augment cognitive screening and tracking of changes in cognitive health over time.

Improving colorectal cancer screening by using community volunteers: results of the Carolinas cancer education and screening (CARES) project.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the Carolinas Cancer Education and Screening (CARES) Project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among low-income women in subsidized housing communities in 11 cities in North and South Carolina who were traditionally underserved by cancer control efforts. METHODS: Cross-sectional samples were randomly selected from housing authority lists at 5 timepoints in this nonrandomized community-based intervention study. Face-to-face interviews focused on CRC knowledge, beliefs, barriers to screening, and screening behaviors. The intervention components were based on a previous evidence-based program. RESULTS: A total of 2098 surveys were completed. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were African American, 62% were 65+ years, and 4% were married. At baseline, the rate of CRC screening within guidelines was 49.3% and physician recommendation was the strongest predictor (odds ratio [OR] = 21.9) of being within guidelines. There was an increase in positive beliefs about CRC screening (P = .010) and in the intention to complete CRC screening in the next 12 months (P = .053) after the intervention. The odds of being within CRC screening guidelines for women living in a city that had received the intervention were not significantly different from women living in a city that had not received the intervention (P = .496). CONCLUSIONS: Although CRC screening rates were not significantly better after the intervention, there was a positive change in beliefs about screening and intention to be screened. The results suggest that the dissemination of an evidence-based behavioral intervention may require a longer duration to engage hard-to-reach populations and change behaviors.

Examining advocacy and comprehensive cancer control.

The effectiveness of advocacy has been well documented and its use established as a common practice in furthering sound public health policy and practices. Efforts are underway to explain how advocacy has supported, shaped and influenced public policy concerning -- and the growth and development of -- comprehensive cancer control initiatives. The objective of this paper is to assess the history, current role and future of advocacy as a means of articulating the value of, and furthering, comprehensive cancer control practices. Comprehensive cancer control is approaching a critical moment in its development, and a unified approach is necessary to achieve common goals. A call to action for supporting and contributing to the success of a comprehensive approach to cancer control is more important today than it was 11 years ago. Advocacy is an essential strategy in that call to action.