Experiences of Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer in Medically Underserved Populations-A Qualitative Study.

We sought to explore the intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing (CGT) experiences of patients with hereditary cancer from diverse, medically underserved populations and their relatives. Participants included patients receiving oncology care at an urban, safety net hospital in Texas or comprehensive cancer center in Alabama and their first-degree relatives. In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were completed wherein patients shared their experiences with genetic counseling (GC), genetic testing (GT), and communicating their results to relatives. Relatives shared their experiences receiving information from the patient and considering CGT. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and themes were identified. Of 25 participating patients, most recalled key aspects of GC and their GT results. Most (80%) patients shared their results with relatives, but only some relatives underwent CGT; patients reported low perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer as a common barrier to CGT for their relatives. Of 16 participating relatives, most reported feeling distress upon learning the patient's GT results. Relatives were fearful of learning their own CGT results but identified prevention and early detection as CGT benefits. Interviews identified opportunities during family communication to improve relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer. Tailored resources may support patients and relatives experiencing distress and fear during GT. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study of intrafamilial communication and cascade genetic testing experiences of patients with hereditary cancer and their relatives from diverse, medically underserved populations identified relatives' perceived susceptibility to hereditary cancer risks, distress, and fear as frequent reactions and barriers to testing. These results may inform future hereditary cancer prevention efforts.

Healthcare Access in Rural Alabama: Patients' Perspective on Access and Utilization.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing healthcare access is a Healthy People 2030 priority. This study examined healthcare access from the residents' perspective in the two most rural counties in the United States and compared the findings with data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in rural and urban counties in Alabama. METHODS: We conducted an in-person population-based survey using cluster sampling within census tracts assessing health insurance coverage, having a usual primary care provider, having had a routine healthcare visit within the past year, and barriers to care. RESULTS: Among the 395 participants, 81.4% indicated having health insurance coverage, which was slightly lower than the BRFSS data for rural (87.6%) and urban counties in Alabama (87%); 89.6% of respondents indicated having a usual primary care provider compared with 84.3% of rural and 77.2% of urban residents; and 83.2% of participants indicated having had a routine healthcare visit in the last year compared with 77.3% of rural and 77.6% of urban residents. These indicators varied significantly across age, sex, and educational attainment and were consistent with BRFSS findings. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare access, as indicated by health insurance coverage and healthcare utilization, among residents in the two most rural US counties is comparable to access among rural and urban Alabamians. Primary care is a highly used resource in rural areas, and further research should characterize other social/behavioral factors that may explain the poor health outcomes seen in rural areas. In addition, BRFSS data continue to offer a reliable picture of healthcare access in rural areas.

Attitudes toward telemedicine among urban and rural residents.

INTRODUCTION: Adoption of telemedicine by healthcare facilities has dramatically increased since the start of coronavirus pandemic; yet, major differences exist in universal acceptance of telemedicine across different population groups. The goal of this study was to examine population-based factors associated with current and/or future use of telemedicine in Alabama. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 532 participants online or by phone, in four urban and eight rural counties in Alabama. Data were collected on: demographics, health insurance coverage, medical history, access to technology, and its use in accessing healthcare services. Generalized logit regression models were used to estimate the odds of choosing "virtual visit" and "phone communication" compared to "in-person visit" for the preferred choice of visit with the healthcare provider; as well as odds for willingness to participate in "virtual visit" in the future. RESULTS: Our study sample had a mean age of 43 (±15) years, 72.9% women, 45.9% Black or African American; 59.4% population living in an urban county. The odds of "phone communication" were higher compared to the odds of "in-person visit", with a unit increase in age (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.03), after adjusting for other covariates. Among participants with past experience of virtual communications, the odds for choosing "virtual visit" were significantly higher compared to choice of in-person visit (odds ratio for virtual visit: 3.23, 95% confidence interval: 2.01-5.18), adjusted for other covariates. Further, people with college or more education were 71% less likely to choose "No" compared to those with high school or lower general education development education for future virtual visit [odds ratio for college or more: 0.29, 95% confodence interval: 0.10-0.87). Likewise, participants residing in rural counties were 57% less likely to choose "No" compared to urban counties for future virtual visit (odds ratio for rural participants: 0.43, 95% confidence interval:0.19-0.97). DISCUSSION: Our study found notable differences in age, education, and rurality for use and/or preference for telemedicine. Medical institutions and healthcare providers will need to account for these differences to ensure that the implementation of telemedicine does not exacerbate existing health disparities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Offering Cervical Cancer Screening with HPV Self-Sampling among African-American Women in the Mississippi Delta.

BACKGROUND: African-American women in the United States have an elevated risk of cervical cancer incidence and mortality. In the Mississippi Delta, cervical cancer disparities are particularly stark. METHODS: We conducted a micro-costing study alongside a group randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy of a patient-centered approach ("Choice" between self-collection at home for HPV testing or current standard of care within the public health system in Mississippi) versus the current standard of care ["Standard-of-care screening," involving cytology (i.e., Pap) and HPV co-testing at the Health Department clinics]. The interventions in both study arms were delivered by community health workers (CHW). Using cost, screening uptake, and colposcopy adherence data from the trial, we informed a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the "Choice" and "Standard-of-care screening" interventions among un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta. RESULTS: When each intervention was simulated every 5 years from ages 25 to 65 years, the "Standard-of-care screening" strategy reduced cancer risk by 6.4% and was not an efficient strategy; "Choice" was more effective and efficient, reducing lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 14.8% and costing $62,720 per year of life saved (YLS). Screening uptake and colposcopy adherence were key drivers of intervention cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Offering "Choice" to un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta led to greater uptake than CHW-facilitated screening at the Health Department, and may be cost-effective. IMPACT: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an HPV self-collection intervention to reduce disparities.

Factors Associated with Perceived Susceptibility to COVID-19 Among Urban and Rural Adults in Alabama.

We examined factors associated with and reasons for perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 among urban and rural adults in Alabama. We surveyed 575 eligible participants' engagement in preventive behaviors, concern about COVID-19 in their communities, perceived susceptibility to the virus, and reasons for susceptibility across three response options (Yes, No, and Don't Know/Not Sure). Bivariate analyses compared characteristics by level of perceived susceptibility to COVID-19. A multinomial logistic regression model evaluated the association of demographics, health insurance coverage, and chronic illness status with perceived susceptibility. Participants' race, gender, and educational attainment were significantly associated with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19. African Americans and males had higher odds of responding 'No', compared to 'Yes' and 'Don't Know/Not Sure' than Whites and females. Participants with a high school education and lower had higher odds of responding 'Don't Know/Not Sure' versus 'Yes' compared to those with college or higher education. Those unconcerned about COVID-19 in their community had higher odds of responding 'No' (OR = 2.51, CI 1.35-4.68) and 'Don't Know/Not Sure' (OR = 2.51, CI 1.26-4.99) versus 'Yes', as compared to those who were concerned. Possibility of exposure at work was the most frequent reasons for perceiving themselves susceptible to COVID-19, engagement in recommended preventive measures was the most frequent reason among respondents who indicated 'No', and uncertainty/perception that everyone is at risk was the most frequent reason among the ones who indicated 'Don't Know/Not Sure'. Results indicate that tailored efforts to heighten perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 among specific demographics are needed.

Beyond words: Parental perceptions on human papilloma virus vaccination recommendations and its impact on uptake.

The goal was to evaluate how provider recommendations regarding Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination impact uptake in a rural setting. The study used a cross-sectional, population-based design with cluster sampling to survey parents/guardians of children ages 9 to 18 in 2019 in Alabama. In addition to demographics/knowledge questions, participants were asked about type of healthcare provider recommendation and impressions they had from this interaction. The primary outcome variable was the result of the healthcare provider recommendation with options including: child got vaccinated day of recommendation, HPV vaccination was scheduled, or HPV vaccination was not scheduled. Bivariate analysis and multinomial logistic regression were performed. Of the 358 respondents, approximately 40% indicated receiving a recommendation from a provider to vaccinate their child. Age of the parent, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and health insurance coverage were similar across groups. Female parents were more likely to report receiving HPV vaccination recommendation than males (44.1% vs. 23.3%; p = 0.009). The type of provider recommendation was not significantly associated with HPV vaccination uptake. The impression from the recommendation of HPV vaccination being "important" was significantly associated with the child being vaccinated that day (OR = 7.31, 95% CI = 2.20-24.3) as well as scheduling HPV vaccination (OR = 3.17, 95% CI 1.01-9.92). Parents who got the impression that "there was no hurry" were less likely to vaccinate their child that day (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.09-0.59). Provider recommedation is well-established as a significant predictor of HPV vaccination, these findings indicate that how the recommendation is perceived may play a more important role in HPV vaccination uptake.

Given a choice between self-sampling at home for HPV testing and standard of care screening at the clinic, what do African American women choose? Findings from a group randomized controlled trial.

The goals of this study were to: (1) evaluate adherence to cervical cancer screening using a patient-centered approach that provided a choice of self-sampling at home for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing or standard of care screening at the local health department ('Choice') versus only standard of care screening at the local health department ('SCS') among un/under-screened African-American women; and (2) examine whether women given a choice were more likely to choose and adhere to self-sampling for HPV testing. We conducted a group randomized trial among un/under-screened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta, with "town" as the unit of randomization (12 towns). Both interventions (i.e., 'Choice' versus 'SCS') were delivered by Community Health Workers (CHWs) through a door-to-door approach. A total of 335 women were enrolled in the study from 2016 to 2019. The 'Choice' arm had a significantly (p = 0.005) higher adherence to screening compared to the 'SCS' arm after adjusting for the cluster effect and other relevant behavioral variables. Participants in the 'Choice' arm were 5.62 (95% CI 1.71-18.44) times more likely to adhere to cervical cancer screening compared to participants in the 'SCS' arm. Women in the 'Choice' arm were significantly more likely to choose (76%) and adhere to self-sampling at home for HPV testing (48% adherence) compared to standard of care screening at the local health department (7.5% adherence). A theory-driven, CHW-led intervention can effectively promote cervical cancer screening among un/under-screened African-American women in a rural setting when women are provided with a choice between two screening modalities. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03713710.

The challenge of HPV vaccination uptake and opportunities for solutions: Lessons learned from Alabama.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is an important tool for cancer prevention. However, vaccination rates in Alabama, a state with high rates of HPV-related cancers, remain below the national average. Our objective was to develop a comprehensive assessment of HPV vaccination in our state, with the goal to make recommendations for tailored multilevel interventions. A multimodal approach with quantitative and qualitative data was used to determine barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination in Alabama. This included a survey of pediatric care providers and structured interviews with pediatricians, parents, nurses and community stakeholders. Two separate investigators evaluated the interview transcripts for major themes that occurred in 65% or more interviews. Major barriers included lack of knowledge, concerns about vaccine safety, and the link between the HPV vaccine and sexuality. Qualitative interviews further revealed barriers such as misinformation received from the internet and parental vaccine hesitancy. Opportunities for increasing vaccination include parental education, establishment of a reminder system, increasing access to HPV vaccine providers, and education for providers. Additional facilitators revealed through interviews included: trust in physicians, using the internet or social media to propagate positive messaging, physicians and clinical staff education, utilizing existing technology more effectively, highlighting nurses' roles as partners in HPV prevention, and the potential of schools as a venue for promotion of the vaccine. Our data are consistent with prior research showing major barriers to HPV vaccination. Several recommendations for optimizing HPV vaccination uptake in Alabama on the patient, provider and system level are given.