Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. RESULTS: Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

The Ethics of Cancer Screening Based on Race and Ethnicity.

Racial and ethnic disparities in incidence and mortality are well documented for many types of cancer. As a result, there is understandable policy and clinical interest in race- and ethnicity-based clinical screening guidelines to address cancer health disparities. Despite the theoretical benefits, such proposals do not typically address associated ethical considerations. Using the examples of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, which have demonstrated disparities according to race and ethnicity, this article examines relevant ethical arguments in considering screening based on race and ethnicity.Race- and ethnicity-based clinical preventive care services have the potential to improve the balance of harms and benefits of screening. As a result, programs focused on high-risk racial or ethnic groups could offer a practical alternative to screening the general population, in which the screening yield may be too low to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness. However, designing screening according to socially based categorizations such as race or ethnicity is controversial and has the potential for intersectional stigma related to social identity or other structurally mediated environmental factors. Other ethical considerations include miscategorization, unintended negative effects on health disparities, disregard for underlying risk factors, and the psychological costs of being assigned higher risk.Given the ethical considerations, the practical application of race and ethnicity in cancer screening is most relevant in multicultural countries if and only if alternative proxies are not available. Even in those instances, policymakers and clinicians should carefully address the ethical considerations within the historical and cultural context of the intended population. Further research on alternative proxies, such as social determinants of health and culturally based characteristics, could provide more adequate factors for risk stratification.

Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Death.

Importance: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. Objective: To evaluate whether FIT screening is associated with a lower risk of dying from CRC overall, according to cancer location, and within demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-control study in a cohort of screening-eligible people was conducted in 2 large, integrated health systems of racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse members with long-term programs of mailed FIT screening outreach. Eligible participants included people aged 52 to 85 years who died from colorectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2017 (cases); cases were matched in a 1:8 ratio based on age, sex, health-plan membership duration, and geographic area to randomly selected persons who were alive and CRC-free on case's diagnosis date (controls). Data analysis was conducted from January 2002 to December 2017. Exposures: Completing 1 or more FIT screenings in the 5-year period prior to the CRC diagnosis date among cases or the corresponding date among controls; in secondary analyses, 2- to 10-year intervals were evaluated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was CRC death overall and by tumor location. Secondary analyses were performed to assess CRC death by race and ethnicity. Results: From a cohort of 2 127 128 people, a total of 10 711 participants (3529 aged 60-69 years [32.9%]; 5587 male [52.1%] and 5124 female [47.8%]; 1254 non-Hispanic Asian [11.7%]; 973 non-Hispanic Black [9.1%]; 1929 Hispanic or Latino [18.0%]; 6345 non-Hispanic White [59.2%]) was identified, including 1103 cases and 9608 controls. Among controls during the 10-year period prior to the reference date, 6101 (63.5%) completed 1 or more FITs with a cumulative 12.6% positivity rate (768 controls), of whom 610 (79.4%) had a colonoscopy within 1 year. During the 5-year period, 494 cases (44.8%) and 5345 controls (55.6%) completed 1 or more FITs. In regression analysis, completing 1 or more FIT screening was associated with a 33% lower risk of death from CRC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76) and 42% lower risk in the left colon and rectum (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.71). There was no association with right colon cancers (aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01) but the difference in the estimates between the right colon and left colon or rectum was statistically significant (P = .01). FIT screening was associated with lower CRC mortality risk among non-Hispanic Asian (aOR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59), non-Hispanic Black (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.85) and non-Hispanic White individuals (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) (P for homogeneity = .04 for homogeneity). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nested case-control study, completing FIT was associated with a lower risk of overall death from CRC, particularly in the left colon, and the associations were observed across racial and ethnic groups. These findings support the use of FIT in population-based screening strategies.

Bias due to coarsening of time intervals in the inference for the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are frequently used to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods due to the practical limitations and time needed to conduct large clinical trials. However, time-varying confounders, e.g. polyp detection in the last screening, can bias statistical results. Recently, generalized methods, or G-methods, have been used for the analysis of observational studies of CRC screening, given their ability to account for such time-varying confounders. Discretization, or the process of converting continuous functions into discrete counterparts, is required for G-methods when the treatment and outcomes are assessed at a continuous scale. DEVELOPMENT: This paper evaluates the interplay between time-varying confounding and discretization, which can induce bias in assessing screening effectiveness. We investigate this bias in evaluating the effect of different CRC screening methods that differ from each other in typical screening frequency. APPLICATION: First, using theory, we establish the direction of the bias. Then, we use simulations of hypothetical settings to study the bias magnitude for varying levels of discretization, frequency of screening and length of the study period. We develop a method to assess possible bias due to coarsening in simulated situations. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method can inform future studies of screening effectiveness, especially for CRC, by determining the choice of interval lengths where data are discretized to minimize bias due to coarsening while balancing computational costs.

The effect of adding physician recommendation in digitally-enabled outreach for COVID-19 vaccination in socially/economically disadvantaged populations.

INTRODUCTION: People from backgrounds that are economically/socially disadvantaged experienced disproportionately high COVID-19 death rates and had lower vaccination rates. Effective outreach strategies for increasing vaccine uptake during the pandemic are not fully known. Among patients receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center, we tested whether community engaged digitally-enabled outreach from a trusted clinician messenger increased COVID vaccine uptake. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 3-parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design was conducted among patients ≥ 18 years old on study enrollment during 2021 with 1,650 assigned in 3:10:20 ratio; 2,328 were later selected for two subsequent implementation rounds. INTERVENTIONS: From April 13 to June 10, 2021, patients were proactively sent a text-messaging invitation to make an appointment for vaccination as part of the routine practice with a link to frequently asked questions (Arm 1, n = 150) with added personalized clinician recommendation alone (Arm 2, n = 500) or with enabled 2-way SMS messaging feature (Arm 3, n = 1,000). Further implementation used messaging addressing vaccine hesitancy (n = 1,323) or adverse reactions to vaccines (n = 1,005). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the completion of the first SARS-Cov-2 vaccine dose determined at 14, 30 and 90 days after outreach. RESULTS: Of 1,650 patients in effectiveness Arms, 61% was female. Vaccination rates for Arms 1, 2, and 3, were 6% (n = 9), 5.4% (n = 27) and 3.3% (n = 33) at 14 days, and 11.5% (n = 17), 11.6% (n = 58), and 8.5% (n = 85) at 90 days, respectively, which were similar in pairwise comparisons. At 90 days, vaccination rates were similar across the two implementation rounds (3.9% vs. 3.6%) and were similar to the rate (3.3%) among patients who were not selected for intervention arms or implementation rounds (n = 8,671). CONCLUSIONS: Digitally-enabled outreach that included SMS messaging outreach augmented with clinician recommendations did not improve COVID-19 vaccination rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrails.gov Identifier: NC-T04952376.

Impact of racial disparities in follow-up and quality of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs rely on completing follow-up colonoscopy when a noncolonoscopy test is abnormal and on quality of colonoscopy screening as measured by the endoscopists' adenoma detection rate. Existing data demonstrate substantially lower follow-up colonoscopy rates and adenoma detection rate for Black Americans than White Americans. However, the contributions of racial differences in follow-up colonoscopy and adenoma detection rate on CRC outcomes have not been rigorously evaluated. METHODS: We used established and validated CRC-Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) model as our analysis platform, with inputs from published literature that report lower follow-up colonoscopy rates and adenoma detection rate in Black adults compared with White adults (15% and 10% lower, respectively). We simulated screening with annual fecal immunochemical test, triennial multitarget stool DNA, and colonoscopy every 10 years between ages 45 and 75 years using real-world utilization of the screening modalities vs no screening. We reported lifetime outcomes per 1000 Black adults. RESULTS: Elimination of Black-White disparities in follow-up colonoscopy rates would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 5.2% and 9.3%, respectively, and improve life-years gained with screening by 3.4%. Elimination of Black-White disparities in endoscopists' adenoma detection rate would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 9.4% and improve life-years gained by 3.7%. Elimination of both disparities would reduce CRC incidence and mortality by 14.6% and 18.7%, respectively, and improve life-years gained by 7.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This modeling study predicts eliminating racial differences in follow-up colonoscopy rates, and quality of screening colonoscopy would substantially reduce Black-White disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Colorectal Cancer Screening After Sequential Outreach Components in a Demographically Diverse Cohort.

Importance: Organized screening outreach can reduce differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between demographic subgroups. Outcomes associated with additional outreach, beyond universal outreach, are not well known. Objective: To compare CRC screening completion by race and ethnicity, age, and sex after universal automated outreach and additional personalized outreach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study included screening-eligible individuals aged 50 to 75 years assessed during 2019 in a community-based organized CRC screening program within the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) integrated health care delivery setting. For KPNC members who are not up to date with screening by colonoscopy, each year the program first uses automated outreach (mailed prescreening notification postcards and fecal immunochemical test [FIT] kits, automated telephone calls, and postcard reminders), followed by personalized components for nonresponders (telephone calls, electronic messaging, and screening offers during office visits). Data analyses were performed between November 2021 and February 2023 and completed on February 5, 2023. Exposures: Completed CRC screening via colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or FIT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants completing an FIT or colonoscopy after each component of the screening process. Differences across subgroups were assessed using the χ2 test. Results: This study included 1 046 745 KPNC members. Their mean (SD) age was 61.1 (6.9) years, and more than half (53.2%) were women. A total of 0.4% of members were American Indian or Alaska Native, 18.5% were Asian, 7.2% were Black, 16.2% were Hispanic, 0.8% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 56.5% were White. Automated outreach significantly increased screening participation by 31.1%, 38.1%, 29.5%, 31.9%, 31.8%, and 34.5% among these groups, respectively; follow-up personalized outreach further significantly increased participation by absolute additional increases of 12.5%, 12.4%, 13.3%, 14.4%, 14.7%, and 11.2%, respectively (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Overall screening coverage at the end of the yearly program differed significantly among members who were American Indian or Alaska Native (74.1%), Asian (83.5%), Black (77.7%), Hispanic (76.4%), or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (74.4%) compared with White members (82.2%) (all differences P < .05 compared with White members). Screening completion was similar by sex; older members were substantially more likely to be up to date with CRC screening both before and at the end of the screening process. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of a CRC screening program, sequential automated and personalized strategies each contributed to substantial increases in screening completion in all demographic groups. These findings suggest that such programs may potentially reduce differences in CRC screening completion across demographic groups.

Projected Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality Based on Observed Adherence to Colonoscopy and Sequential Stool-Based Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Modeling supporting recommendations for colonoscopy and stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests assumes 100% sequential participant adherence. The impact of observed adherence on the long-term effectiveness of screening is unknown. We evaluated the effectiveness of a program of screening colonoscopy every 10 years vs annual high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT) using observed sequential adherence data. METHODS: The MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN) model used observed sequential screening adherence, HSgFOBT positivity, and diagnostic colonoscopy adherence in HSgFOBT-positive individuals from the National Colonoscopy Study (single-screening colonoscopy vs ≥4 HSgFOBT sequential rounds). We compared CRC incidence and mortality over 15 years with no screening or 10 yearly screening colonoscopy vs annual HSgFOBT with 100% and differential observed adherence from the trial. RESULTS: Without screening, simulated incidence and mortality over 15 years were 20.9 (95% probability interval 15.8-26.9) and 6.9 (5.0-9.2) per 1,000 participants, respectively. In the case of 100% adherence, only screening colonoscopy was predicted to result in lower incidence; however, both tests lowered simulated mortality to a similar level (2.1 [1.6-2.9] for screening colonoscopy and 2.5 [1.8-3.4] for HSgFOBT). Observed adherence for screening colonoscopy (83.6%) was higher than observed sequential HSgFOBT adherence (73.1% first round; 49.1% by round 4), resulting in lower simulated incidence and mortality for screening colonoscopy (14.4 [10.8-18.5] and 2.9 [2.1-3.9], respectively) than HSgFOBT (20.8 [15.8-28.1] and 3.9 [2.9-5.4], respectively), despite a 91% adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy with FOBT positivity. The relative risk of CRC mortality for screening colonoscopy vs HSgFOBT was 0.75 (95% probability interval 0.68-0.80). Findings were similar in sensitivity analyses with alternative assumptions for repeat colonoscopy, test performance, risk, age, and projection horizon. DISCUSSION: Where sequential adherence to stool-based screening is suboptimal and colonoscopy is accessible and acceptable-as observed in the national colonoscopy study, microsimulation, comparative effectiveness, screening recommendations.

Integrated Behavioral Health Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns threatened standard components of integrated behavioral health (IBH) such as in-person communication across care teams, screening, and assessment. Restrictions also exacerbated pre-existing challenges to behavioral health (BH) access. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were completed with clinicians from family medicine residency programs on the impact of the pandemic on IBH care delivery along with adaptations employed by care teams to ameliorate disruption. RESULTS: Participants (n = 41) from 14 family medicine residency programs described the rapid shift to virtual care, creating challenges for IBH delivery and increased demand for BH services. With patients and care team members at home, virtual warm handoffs and increased attention to communication were necessary. Screening and measurement were more difficult, and referrals to appropriate services were challenging due to higher demand. Tele-BH facilitated continued access to BH services but was associated with logistic challenges. Participants described adaptations to stay connected with patients and care teams and discussed the need to increase capacity for both in-person and virtual care. DISCUSSION: Most practices modified their workflows to use tele-BH as COVID-19 cases increased. Participants shared key learnings for successful implementation of tele-BH that could be applied in future health care crises. CONCLUSION: Practices adapted readily to challenges posed by pandemic restrictions and their ability to sustain key elements of IBH during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates innovation in maintaining access when in-person care is not possible, informing strategies applicable to other scenarios.

Integrated Behavioral Health Implementation and Training in Primary Care: A Practice-Based Research Network Study.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating behavioral health services into primary care has a strong evidence base, but how primary care training programs incorporate integrated behavioral health (IBH) into care delivery and training has not been well described. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors related to successful IBH implementation in family medicine (FM) residency programs and assess perspectives and attitudes on IBH among program leaders. METHODS: FM residency programs, all which are required to provide IBH training, were recruited from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. After completing eligibility screening that included the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT) questionnaire, 14 training programs were included. Selected practices identified 3 staff in key roles to be interviewed: medical director or similar, behavioral health professional (BHP), and chief medical officer or similar. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals from 14 FM training programs were interviewed. IPAT scores ranged from 4 (Close Collaboration Onsite) to 6 (Full Collaboration). Screening, outcome tracking, and treatment differed among and within practices. Use of curricula and trainee experience also varied with little standardization. Most participants described similar approaches to communication and collaboration between primary care clinicians and BHPs and believed that IBH should be standard practice. Participants reported space, staff, and billing support as critical for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery and training experiences in IBH varied widely despite recognition of the value and benefits to patients and care delivery processes. Standardizing resources and training and simplifying and assuring reimbursement for services may promote sustainable and high quality IBH implementation.

Time to Endoscopy or Colonoscopy Among Adults Younger Than 50 Years With Iron-Deficiency Anemia and/or Hematochezia in the VHA.

Importance: To date, the diagnostic test completion rate and the time to diagnostic endoscopy or colonoscopy among adults with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and/or hematochezia have not been well characterized. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic test completion rate and the time to diagnostic testing among veterans younger than 50 years with IDA and/or hematochezia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted within the Veterans Health Administration between October 1, 1999, and December 31, 2019, among US veterans aged 18 to 49 years from 2 separate cohorts: those with a diagnosis of IDA (n = 59 169) and those with a diagnosis of hematochezia (n = 189 185). Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 to August 2023. Exposures: Diagnostic testing factors included age, sex, race and ethnicity, Veterans Health Administration geographic region, and hemoglobin test value (IDA cohort only). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of diagnostic testing were (1) bidirectional endoscopy after diagnosis of IDA and (2) colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy after diagnosis of hematochezia. The association between diagnostic testing factors and diagnostic test completion was examined using Poisson models. Results: There were 59 169 veterans with a diagnosis of IDA (mean [SD] age, 40.7 [7.1] years; 30 502 men [51.6%]), 189 185 veterans with a diagnosis of hematochezia (mean [SD] age, 39.4 [7.6] years; 163 690 men [86.5%]), and 2287 veterans with IDA and hematochezia (mean [SD] age, 41.6 [6.9] years; 1856 men [81.2%]). The cumulative 2-year diagnostic workup completion rate was 22% (95% CI, 22%-22%) among veterans with IDA and 40% (95% CI, 40%-40%) among veterans with hematochezia. Veterans with IDA were mostly aged 40 to 49 years (37 719 [63.7%]) and disproportionately Black (24 480 [41.4%]). Women with IDA (rate ratio [RR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43) had a lower likelihood of diagnostic test completion compared with men with IDA. Black (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68) and Hispanic (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) veterans with IDA were less likely to receive diagnostic testing compared with White veterans with IDA. Veterans with hematochezia were mostly White (105 341 [55.7%]). Among veterans with hematochezia, those aged 30 to 49 years were more likely to receive diagnostic testing than adults younger than 30 years of age (age 30-39 years: RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.18; age 40-49 years: RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.33-1.40). Hispanic veterans with hematochezia were less likely to receive diagnostic testing compared with White veterans with hematochezia (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In the cohorts of veterans younger than 50 years with IDA and/or hematochezia, the diagnostic test completion rate was low. Follow-up was less likely among female, Black, and Hispanic veterans with IDA and Hispanic veterans with hematochezia. Optimizing timely follow-up across social and demographic groups may contribute to improving colorectal cancer outcomes and mitigate disparities.

Commentary: Some water in the data desert: the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network's capacity to guide mitigation of cancer health disparities.

Despite significant progress in cancer research and treatment, a persistent knowledge gap exists in understanding and addressing cancer care disparities, particularly among populations that are marginalized. This knowledge deficit has led to a "data divide," where certain groups lack adequate representation in cancer-related data, hindering their access to personalized and data-driven cancer care. This divide disproportionately affects marginalized and minoritized communities such as the U.S. Black population. We explore the concept of "data deserts," wherein entire populations, often based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or geography, lack comprehensive and high-quality health data. Several factors contribute to data deserts, including underrepresentation in clinical trials, poor data quality, and limited access to digital technologies, particularly in rural and lower-socioeconomic communities.The consequences of data divides and data deserts are far-reaching, impeding equitable access to precision medicine and perpetuating health disparities. To bridge this divide, we highlight the role of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET), which employs population simulation modeling to quantify cancer care disparities, particularly among the U.S. Black population. We emphasize the importance of collecting quality data from various sources to improve model accuracy. CISNET's collaborative approach, utilizing multiple independent models, offers consistent results and identifies gaps in knowledge. It demonstrates the impact of systemic racism on cancer incidence and mortality, paving the way for evidence-based policies and interventions to eliminate health disparities. We suggest the potential use of voting districts/precincts as a unit of aggregation for future CISNET modeling, enabling targeted interventions and informed policy decisions.

Advancing health equity through social care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity. CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Among Patients Receiving Care at a Federally Qualified Health Center.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States is high, with at least 63 million unvaccinated individuals to date. Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations experience lower COVID-19 vaccination rates despite facing a disproportionate COVID-19 burden. OBJECTIVE: To assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among under-resourced, adult patients. METHODS: Participants were patients receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Data were collected via multiple modes over 2 phases in 2020 (self-administered electronic survey) and 2021 (study team-administered survey by telephone, self-administered written survey) to promote diversity and inclusion for study participation. The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Using logistic regression analysis, associations between vaccine acceptance and factors including risk perception, concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine, social determinants of health (SDOH), co-morbidities, pandemic-induced hardships, and stress were assessed by adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients (62.5% female; mean age [SD]: 49.9 [17.4] years; 32% <$20 000 annual household income; 69%

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk. METHODS: Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk. RESULTS: Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82). CONCLUSIONS: A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.