Examining ACCURE's Nurse Navigation Through an Antiracist Lens: Transparency and Accountability in Cancer Care.

There are persistent disparities in the delivery of cancer treatment, with Black patients receiving fewer of the recommended cancer treatment cycles than their White counterparts on average. To enhance racial equity in cancer care, innovative methods that apply antiracist principles to health promotion interventions are needed. The parent study for the current analysis, the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, was a system-change intervention that successfully eliminated the Black-White disparity in cancer treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. The intervention included specially trained nurse navigators who leveraged real-time data to follow-up with patients during their treatment journeys. Community and academic research partners conducted thematic analysis on all clinical notes (n = 3,251) written by ACCURE navigators after each contact with patients in the specialized navigation arm (n = 162). Analysis was informed by transparency and accountability, principles adapted from the antiracist resource Undoing Racism and determined as barriers to treatment completion through prior research that informed ACCURE. We identified six themes in the navigator notes that demonstrated enhanced accountability of the care system to patient needs. Underlying these themes was a process of enhanced data transparency that allowed navigators to provide tailored patient support. Themes include (1) patient-centered advocacy, (2) addressing system barriers to care, (3) connection to resources, (4) re-engaging patients after lapsed treatment, (5) addressing symptoms and side effects, and (6) emotional support. Future interventions should incorporate transparency and accountability mechanisms and examine the impact on racial equity in cancer care.

'It's like you don't have a roadmap really': using an antiracism framework to analyze patients' encounters in the cancer system.

Background: Cancer patients can experience healthcare system-related challenges during the course of their treatment. Yet, little is known about how these challenges might affect the quality and completion of cancer treatment for all patients, and particularly for patients of color. Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is a multi-component, community-based participatory research intervention to reduce Black-White cancer care disparities. This formative work aimed to understand patients' cancer center experiences, explore racial differences in experiences, and inform systems-level interventions.Methods: Twenty-seven breast and lung cancer patients at two cancer centers participated in focus groups, grouped by race and cancer type. Participants were asked about what they found empowering and disempowering regarding their cancer care experiences. The community-guided analysis used a racial equity approach to identify racial differences in care experiences.Results: For Black and White patients, fear, uncertainty, and incomplete knowledge were disempowering; trust in providers and a sense of control were empowering. Although participants denied differential treatment due to race, analysis revealed implicit Black-White differences in care.Conclusions: Most of the challenges participants faced were related to lack of transparency, such that improvements in communication, particularly two-way communication could greatly improve patients' interaction with the system. Pathways for accountability can also be built into a system that allows patients to find solutions for their problems with the system itself. Participants' insights suggest the need for patient-centered, systems-level interventions to improve care experiences and reduce disparities.

The role of patient-physician relationship on health-related quality of life and pain in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and pain are important supportive cancer care outcomes. The patient-provider relationship, a modifiable care experience, has been linked to healthcare outcomes; however, less is known about associations between patient-provider relationship and supportive care outcomes in cancer patients. We examined the role of multiple aspects of the patient-provider relationship in explaining patterns of HRQOL and pain among breast and lung cancer patients. METHODS: Our analysis included 283 breast and lung cancer patients from two cancer centers. Clinical data and survey data on patient sociodemographic factors, physical and mental HRQOL, pain, and patient-physician relationship (i.e., doctor's respectfulness, time spent with doctors, patient involvement in decision-making, satisfaction with care, and following doctor's advice/treatment plan) were collected at baseline and during treatment. We estimated adjusted modified Poisson regression models to assess associations between patient-physician relationship factors and physical and mental HRQOL and pain. RESULTS: Compared with patients reporting suboptimal respect from doctors, patients reporting optimal respect were less likely to report below average physical HRQOL (adjusted risk ratio (ARR), 0.73; 95%CI, 0.62-0.86), below average mental HRQOL (ARR, 0.71; 95%CI, 0.54-0.93), and moderate-to-severe pain (ARR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.35-0.79). Patients reporting optimal involvement in care decision-making and patients who reported following their doctor's advice/treatment plan were less likely to report below average mental HRQOL than their respective counterparts (ARR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.50-0.83; ARR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.48-0.86). CONCLUSION: Multiple patient-physician relationship factors account for variations in HRQOL and pain in cancer patients. These findings provide insight into potential targets for improving the patient-provider relationship and supportive cancer care outcomes.

Racial Differences in the Influence of Health Care System Factors on Informal Support for Cancer Care Among Black and White Breast and Lung Cancer Survivors.

This retrospective, secondary qualitative analysis investigates whether health system factors influence social support among Black and white breast and lung cancer survivors and racial differences in support. These data come from race- and cancer-stratified focus groups (n = 6) and interviews (n = 2) to inform a randomized controlled trial utilizing antiracism and community-based participatory research approaches. Findings indicate social support was helpful for overcoming treatment-related challenges, including symptom management and patient-provider communication; racial differences in support needs and provision were noted. Resources within individual support networks reflect broader sociostructural factors. Reliance on family/friends to fill gaps in cancer care may exacerbate racial disparities.

Mechanisms to enhance racial equity in health care: Developing a model to facilitate translation of the ACCURE intervention.

Background: As medical and public health professional organizations call on researchers and policy makers to address structural racism in health care, guidance on evidence-based interventions to enhance health care equity is needed. The most promising organizational change interventions to reduce racial health disparities use multilevel approaches and are tailored to specific settings. This study examines the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, which changed systems of care at two U.S. cancer centers and eliminated the Black-White racial disparity in treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. Purpose: We aimed to document key characteristics of ACCURE to facilitate translation of the intervention in other care settings. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants who were involved in the design and implementation of ACCURE and analyzed their responses to identify the intervention's mechanisms of change and key components. Results: Study participants (n = 18) described transparency and accountability as mechanisms of change that were operationalized through ACCURE's key components. Intervention components were designed to enhance either institutional transparency (e.g., a data system that facilitated real-time reporting of quality metrics disaggregated by patient race) or accountability of the care system to community values and patient needs for minimally biased, tailored communication and support (e.g., nurse navigators with training in antiracism and proactive care protocols). Conclusions: The antiracism principles transparency and accountability may be effective change mechanisms in equity-focused health services interventions. The model presented in this study can guide future research aiming to adapt ACCURE and evaluate the intervention's implementation and effectiveness in new settings and patient populations.

Effect of an Antiracism Intervention on Racial Disparities in Time to Lung Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: Timely lung cancer surgery is a metric of high-quality cancer care and improves survival for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Historically, Black patients experience longer delays to surgery than White patients and have lower survival rates. Antiracism interventions have shown benefits in reducing racial disparities in lung cancer treatment. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity, an antiracism prospective pragmatic trial, at five cancer centers to assess the impact on overall timeliness of lung cancer surgery and racial disparities in timely surgery. The intervention consisted of (1) a real-time warning system to identify unmet care milestones, (2) race-specific feedback on lung cancer treatment rates, and (3) patient navigation. The primary outcome was surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using log-binomial regression and adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 2,363 patients with stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer were included in the analyses: intervention (n = 263), retrospective control (n = 1,798), and concurrent control (n = 302). 87.1% of Black patients and 85.4% of White patients in the intervention group (P = .13) received surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis compared with 58.7% of Black patients and 75.0% of White patients in the retrospective group (P < .01) and 64.9% of Black patients and 73.2% of White patients (P = .29) in the concurrent group. Black patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive timely surgery than Black patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.64). White patients in the intervention group also had timelier surgery than White patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is associated with timelier lung cancer surgery and reduction of the racial gap in timely surgery.

Expanding the Reach of an Evidence-Based, System-Level, Racial Equity Intervention: Translating ACCURE to the Maternal Healthcare and Education Systems.

The abundance of literature documenting the impact of racism on health disparities requires additional theoretical, statistical, and conceptual contributions to illustrate how anti-racist interventions can be an important strategy to reduce racial inequities and improve population health. Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) was an NIH-funded intervention that utilized an antiracism lens and community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches to address Black-White disparities in cancer treatment completion. ACCURE emphasized change at the institutional level of healthcare systems through two primary principles of antiracism organizing: transparency and accountability. ACCURE was successful in eliminating the treatment completion disparity and improved completion rates for breast and lung cancer for all participants in the study. The structural nature of the ACCURE intervention creates an opportunity for applications in other health outcomes, as well as within educational institutions that represent social determinants of health. We are focusing on the maternal healthcare and K-12 education systems in particular because of the dire racial inequities faced by pregnant people and school-aged children. In this article, we hypothesize cross-systems translation of a system-level intervention exploring how key characteristics of ACCURE can be implemented in different institutions. Using core elements of ACCURE (i.e., community partners, milestone tracker, navigator, champion, and racial equity training), we present a framework that extends ACCURE's approach to the maternal healthcare and K-12 school systems. This framework provides practical, evidence-based antiracism strategies that can be applied and evaluated in other systems to address widespread structural inequities.

A Multi-faceted Intervention Aimed at Black-White Disparities in the Treatment of Early Stage Cancers: The ACCURE Pragmatic Quality Improvement trial.

BACKGROUND: Reports continue to show that Blacks with curable lung or breast cancer complete treatment less often than similar Whites contributing to worse survival. ACCURE is an intervention trial designed to address this problem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pragmatic, quality improvement trial comparing an intervention group to retrospective and concurrent controls. Patients with early stage breast or lung cancer aged 18 to 85 were enrolled (N = 302) at 2 cancer centers between April 2013 and March 2015 for the intervention component. Data from patients seen between January 2007 and December 2012 with these diagnoses were obtained to establish control completion rates. Concurrent data for non-study patients were used to identify secular trends. The intervention included: a real time registry derived from electronic health records of participants to signal missed appointments or unmet care milestones, a navigator, and clinical feedback. The primary outcome was "Treatment Complete", a composite variable representing completion of surgery, recommended radiation and chemotherapy for each patient. RESULTS: The mean age in the intervention group was 63.1 years; 37.1% of patients were Black. Treatment completion in retrospective and concurrent controls showed significant Black-White differences (Blacks (B) 79.8% vs. Whites (W) 87.3%, p < 0.001; 83.1% B vs. 90.1% W, p < 0.001, respectively). The disparity lessened within the intervention (B 88.4% and W 89.5%, p = 0.77). Multivariate analyses confirmed disparities reduction. OR for Black-White disparity within the intervention was 0.98 (95% CI 0.46-2.1); Black completion in the intervention compared favorably to Whites in retrospective (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.90-2.9) and concurrent (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.59-2.0) controls. CONCLUSION: A real time registry combined with feedback and navigation improved completion of treatment for all breast and lung cancer patients and narrowed disparities. Similar multi-faceted interventions could mitigate disparities in the treatment of other cancers and chronic conditions.

Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative and equitable approach to research inquiry; however, the process of establishing and maintaining CBPR partnerships can be challenging. There is an ongoing need for innovative strategies that foster partnership development and long-term sustainability. In 2010, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill developed a CBPR charrette model to facilitate stakeholder engagement in translational research. OBJECTIVE: To describe how the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) Study leveraged the CBPR charrette process to develop and strengthen its CBPR partnership and successfully implement research objectives. METHODS: Fourteen CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners participated in the CBPR charrette. Two co-facilitators guided the charrette application process and in-person discussion of partnership strengths, needs, and challenges. Community experts (CEs) and academic experts (AEs) with extensive experience in CBPR and health disparities provided technical assistance and recommendations during the in-person charrette. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the CHAMPS partnership benefited significantly from the charrette process. Specifically, the charrette process engendered greater transparency, accountability, and trust among CHAMPS partners by encouraging collective negotiation of project goals and implementation, roles and responsibilities, and compensation and communication structures. The process also allowed for the exploration of newly identified challenges and potential solutions with support from CEs and AEs. Furthermore, the charrette also functioned as a catalyst for capacity building among CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners. Future studies should compare the impact of the CBPR charrette, relative to other approaches, on partnership development and process evaluation outcomes.