Developing a community facilitator-led participatory learning and action women's group intervention to improve infant feeding, care and dental hygiene practices in South Asian infants: NEON programme.

INTRODUCTION: The Nurture Early for Optimal Nutrition (NEON) study is a multiphase project that aims to optimize feeding, care and dental hygiene practices in South Asian children <2 years in East London, United Kingdom. The multiphase project uses a participatory learning and action (PLA) approach facilitated by a multilingual community facilitator. In this paper, we elaborate on the process and results of the Intervention Development Phase in the context of the wider NEON programme. METHODS: Qualitative community-based participatory intervention codevelopment and adaptation. SETTING: Community centres in East London and online (Zoom) meetings and workshops. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 32 participants registered to participate in the Intervention Development Phase. Four Intervention Development workshops were held, attended by 25, 17, 20 and 20 participants, respectively. RESULTS: Collaboratively, a culturally sensitive NEON intervention package was developed consisting of (1) PLA group facilitator manual, (2) picture cards detailing recommended and nonrecommended feeding, care and dental hygiene practices with facilitators/barriers to uptake as well as solutions to address these, (3) healthy infant cultural recipes, (4) participatory Community Asset Maps and (5) list of resources and services supporting infant feeding, care and dental hygiene practices. CONCLUSION: The Intervention Development Phase of the NEON programme demonstrates the value of a collaborative approach between researchers, community facilitators and the target population when developing public health interventions. We recommend that interventions to promote infant feeding, care and dental hygiene practices should be codeveloped with communities. Recognizing and taking into account both social and cultural norms may be of particular value for infants from ethnically diverse communities to develop interventions that are both effective in and accepted by these communities. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT: Considerable efforts were placed on Patient/Participant and Public Involvement and Engagement. Five community facilitators were identified, each of which represented one ethnic/language group: (i) Bangladeshi/Bengali and Sylheti, (ii) Pakistani/Urdu, (iii) Indian/Gujrati, (iv) Indian/Punjabi and (v) Sri Lankan/Tamil. The community facilitators were engaged in every step of the study, from the initial drafting of the protocol and study design to the Intervention Development and refinement of the NEON toolkit, as well as the publication and dissemination of the study findings. More specifically, their role in the Intervention Development Phase of the NEON programme was to: 1. Support the development of the study protocol, information sheets and ethics application. 2. Ensure any documents intended for community members are clear, appropriate and sensitively worded. 3. Develop strategies to troubleshoot any logistical challenges of project delivery, for example, recruitment shortfalls. 4. Contribute to the writing of academic papers, in particular reviewing and revising drafts. 5. Develop plain language summaries and assist in dissemination activities, for example, updates on relevant websites. 6. Contribute to the development of the NEON intervention toolkit and recruitment of the community members. 7. Attend and contribute to Intervention Development workshops, ensuring the participant's voices were the focus of the discussion and workshop outcomes.

Lung Cancer Screening With Low Dose Computed Tomography in Patients With and Without Prior History of Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a prior history of cancer (PHC) are at increased risk of second primary malignancy, of which lung cancer is the most common. We compared the performance metrics of positive screening rates and cancer detection rates (CDRs) among those with versus without PHC. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 26,366 National Lung Screening Trial participants screened with low dose computed tomography between August 2002 and September 2007. We evaluated absolute rates and age-adjusted relative risks (RRs) of positive screening rates on the basis of retrospective Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) application, invasive diagnostic procedure rate, complication rate, and CDR in those with versus without PHC using a binary logistic regression model using Firth's penalized likelihood. We also compared cancer type, stage, and treatment in those with versus without PHC. RESULTS: A total of 4.1% (n = 1071) of patients had PHC. Age-adjusted rates of positive findings were similar in those with versus without PHC (Baseline: PHC = 13.7% versus no PHC = 13.3%, RR [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.04 [0.88-1.24]; Subsequent: PHC = 5.6% versus no PHC = 5.5%, RR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.84-1.23]). Age-adjusted CDRs were higher in those with versus without PHC on baseline (PHC=1.9% versus no PHC = 0.8%, RR [95% CI]: 2.51 [1.67-3.81]) but not on subsequent screenings (PHC = 0.6% versus no PHC = 0.4%, RR [95% CI]: 1.37 [0.99-1.93]). There were no differences in cancer stage, type, or treatment by PHC status. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PHC may benefit from lung cancer screening, and with their providers, should be made aware of the possibility of higher cancer detection, invasive procedures, and complication rates on baseline lung cancer screening, but not on subsequent low dose computed tomography screening examinations.

Availability Versus Utilization of Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Post Passage of Breast Density Legislation.

Objective: Despite the lack of evidence that supplemental screening in women with dense breasts reduces breast cancer mortality, 38 states have passed breast density legislation, with some including recommendations for supplemental screening. The objective of this study is to compare the availability versus use of supplemental breast cancer screening modalities and determine factors driving use of supplemental screening in rural versus urban settings. Methods: A 50-item mailed survey using the Tailored Design Method was sent to American College of Radiology mammography-accredited facilities in North Carolina in 2017. Respondents included 94 facilities (48 rural and 46 urban locations). Survey questions focused on breast cancer and supplemental screening services, breast density, risk factors/assessment, and facility demographics. Results: The survey response rate was 60.3% (94/156). Among the 94 respondents, 64.0% (n = 60) reported availability of any type of supplemental screening (digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT], ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]). In facilities where supplemental screening modalities were available, the most commonly utilized supplemental screening modality was DBT (96.4%), compared with ultrasound (35.7%) and MRI (46.7%). Facilities reported using supplemental screening based on patient breast density (48.3%), referring physician recommendation (63.3%), reading radiologist recommendation (63.3%), breast cancer risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Urban facilities were more likely than rural facilities to base supplemental screening on breast cancer risk factors (62.5% vs. 32.1%; p-value = 0.019), referring physician (75.0% vs. 50.0%; p-value = 0.045), and reading radiologist (78.1% vs. 46.4%; p-value = 0.011). Conclusion: In our study, supplemental screening modalities were widely available, with facilities more likely to use DBT for supplemental screening compared to other modalities.

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification.

BACKGROUND: State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women. METHODS: A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening. CONCLUSIONS: In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.

Supplemental Breast Imaging Utilization After Breast Density Legislation in North Carolina.

PURPOSE: Breast density notification laws are increasingly common but little is known of how they affect supplemental screening use. The aim of this study was to investigate supplemental screening before and after density notification in North Carolina, where notification has been required since 2014. METHODS: Breast screening data from Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged 40 to 79 years with no personal histories of breast cancer or breast implants were evaluated. Supplemental screening was defined as a nondiagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), whole-breast ultrasound, or breast MRI performed within 3 months of negative or benign results on screening mammography (2-D or DBT). Supplemental screening before (2012-2013) and after (2014-2016) the notification law was compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study period, 78,967 women underwent 145,279 index screening mammographic examinations. Supplemental screening use was similar before and after the notification law, regardless of breast density (dense breasts: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.75; nondense breasts: aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.38-1.04). Although there was no change in supplemental screening, new use of any screening DBT from 2014 to 2016 was greater for women with dense breasts (versus nondense breasts; aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that supplemental screening use in North Carolina did not change after enactment of a breast density notification law, though the increase in new use of any screening DBT was greater for women with dense breasts. The short-term lack of change in supplemental screening should be considered as additional notification laws are developed.

Development and Psychometric Properties of the Self-Blame Attributions for Cancer Scale.

OBJECTIVES: To adapt the Cardiac Self-Blame Attributions Scale into the Self-Blame Attributions for Cancer Scale (SBAC) for use in patients with cancer and analyze its psychometric properties. SAMPLE & SETTING: 113 patients receiving radiation therapy at the University of Kansas Cancer Center. METHODS & VARIABLES: The SBAC and other self-report measures were administered during outpatient oncology appointments for radiation therapy to establish the psychometric properties of the SBAC. RESULTS: A two-factor structure represented behavioral and characterological self-blame attributions. Reliability estimates for each factor were excellent and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity was found, indicating support for the SBAC as a valid and reliable measure of self-blame attributions in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The SBAC may help healthcare providers, including nursing staff, to identify the self-blame patterns exhibited by patients with cancer. Future research can assess the reliability and validity of SBAC across stages of treatment and establish the predictive validity of the scale in individuals with cancer.

Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of "Informed".

BACKGROUND: As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women's perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws. OBJECTIVE: Explore women's knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws. DESIGN: Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. APPROACH: Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding. KEY RESULTS: Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were "better," even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density. CONCLUSIONS: More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making.

Opinions and Practices of Lung Cancer Screening by Physician Specialty.

BACKGROUND In response to the National Lung Screening Trial, numerous professional organizations published guidelines recommending annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients. Prior studies found that physician attitudes and knowledge about lung cancer screening directly impacts the number of screening exams ordered.METHODS In 2015, we surveyed 34 pulmonologists and 186 primary care providers (PCPs) to evaluate opinions and practices of lung cancer screening in a large academic medical center. We compared PCP and pulmonologist responses using t-tests and χ2 tests.RESULTS The overall survey response rate was 40% (39% for PCPs and 50% for pulmonologists). Pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to report lung cancer screening as beneficial for patients (88.2% versus 37.7%, P < .0001) and as being cost-effective (47.1% versus 14.3%, P = .02). More pulmonologists (76%) reported ordering a LDCT for screening in the past 12 months compared to PCPs (41%, P = .012). Pulmonologists and PCPs reported similar barriers to referring patients for lung cancer screening, including patient costs (82.4% versus 77.8%), potential for emotional harm (58.8% versus 58.3%), high false positive rate (47.1% versus 69.4%), and likelihood for medical complications (47.1% versus 59.7%).LIMITATIONS Our results are generalizable to academic medical centers and responses may be susceptible to recall bias, non-response bias, and social desirability bias.CONCLUSION We found significant differences in opinions and practices between PCPs and pulmonologists regarding lung cancer screening referrals and perceived benefits. As lung cancer screening continues to emerge in clinical practice, it is important to understand these differences across provider specialty to ensure screening is implemented and offered to patients appropriately.

Lung Cancer Screening Practices in North Carolina CT Facilities.

BACKGROUND: The burden of lung cancer in the United States is staggering, with more Americans dying from lung cancer than the next four most common cancers combined. With endorsement of lung cancer screening by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and reimbursement by CMS, the number screened for lung cancer with low-dose CT (LDCT) is anticipated to rise in the near future. METHODS: In 2015, we conducted a cross-sectional study of mailed surveys to 112 ACR CT facilities across North Carolina to examine recommended guidelines for lung cancer screening, referral patterns, and patient tracking methods. We describe the survey results and compare findings with surveys of academic medical centers. RESULTS: Among 48 respondents (response rate = 42.9%), 54.2% offer lung cancer screening with LDCT (93.1% community and 6.9% academic settings); of these, 70.8% use ACR/CMS guidelines. In lung cancer screening facilities, reported patient volumes are low (average eight patients screened per month, range: 0-30) and patient tracking occurs in 72% of facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Among our predominately community-based sample of facilities, we found variation in lung cancer screening guideline usage, number of patients screened, and tracking methods.

Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians.

INTRODUCTION: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients in December 2013. We compared lung cancer screening-related opinions and practices among attending and resident primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS: In 2015, we conducted a 23-item survey among physicians at a large academic medical center. We surveyed 100 resident PCPs (30% response rate) and 86 attending PCPs (49% response rate) in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. The questions focused on physicians' opinions, knowledge of recommendations, self-reported practice patterns, and barriers to lung cancer screening. In 2015 and 2016, we compared responses among attending versus resident PCPs using chi-square/Fisher's exact tests and 2-samples t-tests. RESULTS: Compared with resident PCPs, attending PCPs were older (mean age =47 vs 30 years) and more likely to be male (54% vs 37%). Over half of both groups concurred that inconsistent recommendations make deciding whether or not to screen difficult. A substantial proportion in both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of lung cancer screening for patients (43% attending PCPs and 55% resident PCPs). The majority of attending and resident PCPs agreed that barriers to screening included limited time during patient visits (62% and 78%, respectively), cost to patients (74% and 83%, respectively), potential for complications (53% and 70%, respectively), and a high false-positive rate (67% and 73%, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no evidence to suggest that attending and resident PCPs had differing opinions about lung cancer screening. For population-based implementation of lung cancer screening, physicians and trainees will need resources and time to address the benefits and harms with their patients.

Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.

PURPOSE: Mammography technologists' level of training, years of experience, and feedback on technique may play an important role in the breast-cancer screening process. However, information on the mammography technologist workforce is scant. METHODS: In 2013, we conducted a survey mailed to 912 mammography technologists working in 224 facilities certified by the Mammography Quality Standards Act in North Carolina. Using standard survey methodology, we developed and implemented a questionnaire on the education and training, work experiences, and workplace interactions of mammography technologists. We aggregated responses using survey weights to account for nonresponse. We describe and compare lead (administrative responsibilities) and nonlead (supervised by another technologist) mammography technologist characteristics, testing for differences, using t-tests and χ(2) analysis. RESULTS: A total of 433 mammography technologists responded (survey response rate = 47.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.2%-50.7%), including 128 lead and 305 nonlead technologists. Most mammography technologists were non-Hispanic, white women; their average age was 48 years. Approximately 93% of lead and nonlead technologists had mammography-specific training, but <4% had sonography certification, and 3% had MRI certification. Lead technologists reported more years of experience performing screening mammography (P = .02) and film mammography (P = .03), more administrative hours (P < .0001), and more workplace autonomy (P = .002) than nonlead technologists. Nonlead technologists were more likely to report performing diagnostic mammograms (P = .0004) or other breast imaging (P = .001), discuss image quality with a peer (P = .013), and have frequent face-to-face interaction with radiologists (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer insights into mammography technologists' training and work experiences, highlighting variability in characteristics of lead versus nonlead technologists.

Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women.

PURPOSE: There is scarce information on whether digital screening mammography performance differs between black and white women. METHODS: We examined 256,470 digital screening mammograms performed from 2005 to 2010 among 31,654 black and 133,152 white Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged ≥40 years. We compared recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV1) between black and white women, adjusting for potential confounders using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in 276 black and 1,095 white women. Recall rates were similar for blacks and whites (8.6 vs. 8.5 %), as were sensitivity (83.7 vs. 82.4 %), specificity (91.8 vs. 91.9 %), and PPV1 (4.8 vs. 5.3 %) (all p values >0.05). Stratified and adjusted models showed similar results. Despite comparable mammography performance, tumors diagnosed in black women were more commonly poorly differentiated and hormone receptor negative. CONCLUSION: Equivalent performance of digital screening mammography by race suggests that efforts to understand tumor disparities should focus on etiologic factors that influence tumor biology.

Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from a community-based mammography registry from 1994 to 2009, we identified 162,755 diagnostic mammograms interpreted by 286 radiologists and performed by 303 mammographic technologists. We calculated sensitivity, false-positive rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for examinations performed (i.e., images acquired) by each mammographic technologist, separately for conventional (film-screen) and digital modalities. We assessed the variability of these performance measures among mammographic technologists, using mixed effects logistic regression and taking into account the clustering of examinations within women, radiologists, and radiology practices. RESULTS: Among the 291 technologists performing conventional examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations performed was 83.0% (95% CI, 80.8-85.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 8.0-9.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 27.1% (95% CI, 24.8-29.4%). For the 45 technologists performing digital examinations, mean sensitivity of the examinations they performed was 79.6% (95% CI, 73.1-86.2%), mean false-positive rate was 8.8% (95% CI, 7.5-10.0%), and mean PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography was 23.6% (95% CI, 18.8-28.4%). We found significant variation by technologist in the sensitivity, false-positive rate, and PPV of the recommendation for biopsy from mammography for conventional but not digital mammography (p < 0.0001 for all three interpretive performance measures). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the technologist has an influence on radiologists' interpretive performance for diagnostic conventional but not digital mammography. Future studies should examine why this difference between modalities exists and determine if similar patterns are observed for screening mammography.

The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the mammographic technologist has an effect on the radiologists' interpretative performance of screening mammography in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, we included Carolina Mammography Registry data from 372 radiologists and 356 mammographic technologists from 1994 to 2009 who performed 1,003,276 screening mammograms. Measures of interpretative performance (recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and cancer detection rate [CDR]) were ascertained prospectively with cancer outcomes collected from the state cancer registry and pathology reports. To determine if the mammographic technologist influenced the radiologists' performance, we used mixed effects logistic regression models, including a radiologist-specific random effect and taking into account the clustering of examinations across women, separately for screen-film mammography (SFM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). RESULTS: Of the 356 mammographic technologists included, 343 performed 889,347 SFM examinations, 51 performed 113,929 FFDM examinations, and 38 performed both SFM and FFDM examinations. A total of 4328 cancers were reported for SFM and 564 cancers for FFDM. The technologists had a statistically significant effect on the radiologists' recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and CDR for both SFM and FFDM (P values <.01). For PPV1, variability by technologist was observed for SFM (P value <.0001) but not for FFDM (P value = .088). CONCLUSIONS: The interpretative performance of radiologists in screening mammography varies substantially by the technologist performing the examination. Additional studies should aim to identify technologist characteristics that may explain this variation.

Occupational injuries on thoroughbred horse farms: a description of Latino and non-Latino workers' experiences.

Animal production is a dangerous industry and increasingly reliant on a Latino workforce. Within animal production, little is known about the risks or the occupational hazards of working on farms involved in various aspects of thoroughbred horse breeding. Extant research suggests that horse workers are at risk of musculoskeletal and respiratory symptoms, kicks, and other injuries. However, limited known research has examined the experiences of the industry's workers, including immigrant workers, despite their prominence and increased vulnerability. Using data collected from thoroughbred farm representatives via a phone-administered survey, a 2-hour face-to-face semi-structured interview, and farm injury logs, this article identifies and describes types of injuries experienced by workers (N = 284) and their surrounding circumstances. Results indicate that general injuries and musculoskeletal strains, sprains, and tears account for a majority of injuries among workers on thoroughbred farms. Upper limbs and extremities are most frequently injured, while direct contact with the horse accounted for over half of all injuries. No differences in the diagnoses or distribution of injury were found by ethnicity; however, Latinos were more often struck by or trampled by a horse while non-Latinos were more often injured by an insect or plant. Implications and opportunities for future research are discussed.

Occupational health among Latino horse and crop workers in Kentucky: the role of work organization factors.

Agriculture is a dangerous industry often reliant on Latino workers, a vulnerable population. Using a work organization framework, this cross-sectional study analyzes the relationship between work organization variables and the occupational health of Latino crop (n = 49) and horse breeding (n = 54) workers in Kentucky. Increased levels of abusive supervision were associated with occupational injury (odds ratio [OR] = 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-8.77) and increased awkward postures were associated with occupational illness (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.06-13.98). Although not statistically significant, abusive supervision increased the odds and a high safety climate score decreased the odds of injury, illness, and missed work. These findings suggest that the supervisor-subordinate relationship may play a critical role in the occupational health of Latino farmworkers.