Condoms on Campus: Understanding College Students' Embarrassment, Self-Efficacy, and Beliefs About Distribution Programs.

BACKGROUND: Condom distribution programs are a structural-level intervention implemented on college campuses to reduce sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies. Understanding students' beliefs about these programs and attitudes that can affect condom use is critical. METHODS: Students at 6 different universities (n = 2809) completed items related to beliefs about campus condom distribution programs and their personal condom embarrassment and condom self-efficacy levels. Surveys were completed both in classroom and online. T Tests and analysis of variance were used to examine differences based on demographics. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of condom use. RESULTS: College students support the distribution of condoms on campus (97.4%) but express moderate levels of embarrassment in condom acquisition and possession (mean, 19.37). Lower rates of embarrassment were reported for condom negotiation (mean, 9.13) and actual condom use (mean, 8.48). Lower overall rates of embarrassment were reported by condom users, men and individuals in relationships compared with noncondom users, women, and single individuals. Heterosexual students were more embarrassed than bisexual students about acquiring condoms and negotiating condom use. Condom users, men, and individuals in relationships had higher rates of condom self-efficacy compared with nonusers, women, and single students. There were no differences in self-efficacy based on sexual orientation. Embarrassment about acquiring and actual use of condoms, condom self-efficacy and demographics were all significant predictors of condom use. CONCLUSIONS: Campus condom distribution programs are supported by college students. Interventions to address embarrassment and increase condom self-efficacy need to be tailored to different students based on gender, experience with condoms, and relationship status.

Characterizing dengue transmission in rural areas: A systematic review.

Dengue has historically been considered an urban disease associated with dense human populations and the built environment. Recently, studies suggest increasing dengue virus (DENV) transmission in rural populations. It is unclear whether these reports reflect recent spread into rural areas or ongoing transmission that was previously unnoticed, and what mechanisms are driving this rural transmission. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize research on dengue in rural areas and apply this knowledge to summarize aspects of rurality used in current epidemiological studies of DENV transmission given changing and mixed environments. We described how authors defined rurality and how they defined mechanisms for rural dengue transmission. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for articles evaluating dengue prevalence or cumulative incidence in rural areas. A total of 106 articles published between 1958 and 2021 met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 56% (n = 22) of the 48 estimates that compared urban and rural settings reported rural dengue incidence as being as high or higher than in urban locations. In some rural areas, the force of infection appears to be increasing over time, as measured by increasing seroprevalence in children and thus likely decreasing age of first infection, suggesting that rural dengue transmission may be a relatively recent phenomenon. Authors characterized rural locations by many different factors, including population density and size, environmental and land use characteristics, and by comparing their context to urban areas. Hypothesized mechanisms for rural dengue transmission included travel, population size, urban infrastructure, vector and environmental factors, among other mechanisms. Strengthening our understanding of the relationship between rurality and dengue will require a more nuanced definition of rurality from the perspective of DENV transmission. Future studies should focus on characterizing details of study locations based on their environmental features, exposure histories, and movement dynamics to identify characteristics that may influence dengue transmission.

Using community-engaged methods to develop a study protocol for a cost analysis of a multi-site patient navigation intervention for breast cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention for reducing delays in oncology care among underserved populations. In order to address the financial sustainability of this intervention, information is needed on the cost of implementing patient navigation in diverse healthcare settings. Because patient navigation programs and care settings are highly variable, this paucity of cost data creates difficulties in identifying best practices and decisions about the feasibility of implementing navigation programs within a health care system. One barrier to collecting these cost data is the lack of assessment tools available to support patient navigation programs. These tools must be relevant to the wide variety of navigation activities that exist in health care settings, and be flexible enough to collect cost data important to stakeholders in fee-for-service and value-based care environments. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a novel approach and methods for assessing the cost of a patient navigation program implemented across six hospital systems to enhance timely entry and uptake of breast cancer care and treatment. These methods and tools were developed in partnership with breast oncology patient navigators and supervisors using principles of stakeholder engagement, with the goal of increasing usability and feasibility in the field. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can be used to strengthen cost analysis and assessment tools for other navigation programs for improving care and treatment for patients with chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03514433.

Patient navigator team perceptions on the implementation of a citywide breast cancer patient navigation protocol: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018 Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP), an evidence-based patient navigation intervention aimed at addressing breast cancer care disparities, was implemented across six Boston hospitals. This study assesses patient navigator team member perspectives regarding implementation barriers and facilitators one year post-study implementation. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews at the six sites participating in the pragmatic TRIP trial from December 2019 to March 2021. Navigation team members involved with breast cancer care navigation processes at each site were interviewed at least 12 months after intervention implementation. Interview questions were designed to address domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), focusing on barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention that included 1) rigorous 11-step guidelines for navigation, 2) a shared patient registry and 3) a social risk screening and referral program. Analysis was structured using deductive codes representing domains and constructs within CFIR. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with patient navigators, their supervisors, and designated clinical champions. Participants identified the following benefits provided by the TRIP intervention: 1) increased networking and connections for navigators across clinical sites (Cosmopolitanism), 2) formalization of the patient navigation process (Goals and Purpose, Access to Knowledge and Information, and Relative Advantage), and 3) flexibility within the TRIP intervention that allowed for diversity in implementation and use of TRIP components across sites (Adaptability). Barriers included those related to documentation requirements (Complexity) and the structured patient follow up guidelines that did not always align with the timeline of existing site navigation processes (Relative Priority). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides data using real-world experience from an intervention trial in progress, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based patient navigation intervention for breast cancer care. We identified core processes that facilitated the navigators' patient-focused tasks and role on the clinical team. Barriers encountered reflect limitations of navigator funding models and high caseload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433 , 5/2/2018.