Community Outreach and Engagement at U.S. Cancer Centers: Notes from the Third Cancer Center Community Impact Forum.

Community outreach and engagement (COE) is a fundamental activity of cancer centers as they aim to reduce cancer disparities in their geographic catchment areas. As part of COE, NCI-Designated Cancer Centers must monitor the burden of cancer in their catchment area, implement and evaluate evidence-based strategies, stimulate catchment area relevant research, support clinical trial enrollment, and participate in policy and advocacy initiatives, in addition to other responsibilities. The Cancer Center Community Impact Forum (CCCIF) is a national annual meeting of COE professionals who work at or with cancer centers across the country. CCCIF grew out of earlier discussions at American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) annual meetings, where COE was often discussed, but not exclusively. The third annual CCCIF meeting-hosted by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University-was held in June 2022 in Philadelphia, PA, where more than 200 participants listened to dynamic presentations across 12 COE-related panel sessions. CCCIF leadership and ASPO AD/PL Workshop Planners worked together on the agenda. The 12 sessions used a COE lens to focus on: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Policy; State Cancer Coalitions; Evaluation and Metrics; Implementation Science; In-reach; Outreach; Training and Education; Funding, Personnel and Resources; Clinical Trials; Innovative Methods; and Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is a summary of main points and key lessons from each session, as well as a summary of overarching themes that were evident across the sessions.

COVID-19 Communication From Seven Health Care Institutions in North Texas for English- and Spanish-Speaking Cancer Patients: Mixed Method Website Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created an urgent need to rapidly disseminate health information, especially to those with cancer, because they face higher morbidity and mortality rates. At the same time, the pandemic's disproportionate impact on Latinx populations underscores the need for information to reach Spanish speakers. However, the equity of COVID-19 information communicated through institutions' online media to Spanish-speaking cancer patients is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multimodal, mixed method document review study to evaluate the equity of online information about COVID-19 and cancer available to English- and Spanish-speaking populations from seven health care institutions in North Texas, where one in five adults is Spanish-speaking. Our focus was less on the "digital divide," which conveys disparities in access to computers and the internet based on the race/ethnicity, education, and income of at-risk populations; rather, our study asks the following question: to what extent is online content useful and culturally appropriate in meeting Spanish speakers' information needs? METHODS: We reviewed 50 websites (33 English and 17 Spanish) over a period of 1 week in the middle of May 2020. We sampled seven institutions' main oncology and COVID web pages, and both internal (institutional) and external (noninstitutional) linked content. We conducted several analyses for each sampled page, including (1) thematic content analysis, (2) literacy level analysis using Readability Studio software, (3) coding using the Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and (4) descriptive analysis of video and diversity content. RESULTS: The themes most frequently addressed on English and Spanish websites differed. While "resources/FAQs" were frequently cited themes on both websites, English websites more frequently addressed "news/updates" and "cancer+COVID," and Spanish websites addressed "protection" and "COVID data." Spanish websites had on average a lower literacy level (11th grade) than English websites (13th grade), although still far above the recommended guideline of 6th to 8th grade. The PEMAT's overall average accessibility score was the same for English (n=33 pages) and Spanish pages (n=17 pages) at 82%. Among the Dallas-Fort Worth organizations, the average accessibility of Spanish pages (n=7) was slightly lower than that of English pages (n=19) (77% vs 81%), due mostly to the discrepancy in English-only videos and visual aids. Of the 50 websites, 12 (24%) had embedded videos; however, 100% of videos were in English, including one on a Spanish website. CONCLUSIONS: We identified an uneven response among the seven health care institutions for providing equitable information to Spanish-speaking Dallas-Fort Worth residents concerned about COVID and cancer. Spanish speakers lack equal access in both diversity of content about COVID-19 and access to other websites, leaving an already vulnerable cancer patient population at greater risk. We recommend several specific actions to enhance content and navigability for Spanish speakers.