Exploring barriers and facilitators of implementing an at-home SARS-CoV-2 antigen self-testing intervention: The Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating community-based programs provides value to researchers, funding entities, and community stakeholders involved in program implementation, and can increase program impact and sustainability. To understand factors related to program implementation, we aimed to capture the perspective of community partners engaged in organizing and executing community-engaged programs to distribute COVID-19 at-home tests in underserved communities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with community-based stakeholders informed by the Outcomes for Implementation Research framework. RESULTS: Findings describe how community-engaged communication and dissemination strategies drove program adoption among grassroots stakeholders. Establishing and sustaining trusted relationships was vital to engaging partners with aligned values and capacity. Respondents characterized the programs as generally feasible and appropriate, and community partners felt capable of delivering the program successfully. However, they also described an increased burden on their workforce and desired more significant support. Respondents recognized the programs' community engagement practices as a critical facilitator of acceptability and impact. DISCUSSION: Implementation evaluation aims to inform current and future community outreach and engagement efforts with best practices. As we continue to inform and advance community-engaged disaster response practice, a parallel reimagining of public health funding mechanisms and timelines could provide a foundation for trust, collaboration, and community resiliency that endures beyond a given crisis.

You & Me: Test and Treat study protocol for promoting COVID-19 test and treatment access to underserved populations.

BACKGROUND: Infections and deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately affected underserved populations. A community-engaged approach that supports decision making around safe COVID-19 practices is needed to promote equitable access to testing and treatment. You & Me: Test and Treat (YMTT) will evaluate a systematic and scalable community-engaged protocol that provides rapid access to COVID-19 at-home tests, education, guidance on next steps, and information on local resources to facilitate treatment in underserved populations. METHODS: This direct-to-participant observational study will distribute at-home, self-administered, COVID-19 testing kits to people in designated communities. YMTT features a Public Health 3.0 framework and Toolkit prescribing a tiered approach to community engagement. We will partner with two large community organizations, Merced County United Way (Merced County, CA) and Pitt County Health Department (Pitt County, NC), who will coordinate up to 20 local partners to distribute 40,000 COVID tests and support enrollment, consenting, and data collection over a 15-month period. Participants will complete baseline questions about their demographics, experience with COVID-19 infection, and satisfaction with the distribution event. Community partners will also complete engagement surveys. In addition, participants will receive guidance on COVID-19 mitigation and health-promoting resources, and accessible and affordable therapeutics if they test positive for COVID-19. Data collection will be completed using a web-based platform that enables creation and management of electronic data capture forms. Implementation measures include evaluating 1) the Toolkit as a method to form community-academic partnerships for COVID-19 test access, 2) testing results, and 3) the efficacy of a YMTT protocol coupled with local resourcing to provide information on testing, guidance, treatment, and links to resources. Findings will be used to inform innovative methods to address community needs in public health research that foster cultural relevance, improve research quality, and promote health equity. DISCUSSION: This work will promote access to COVID-19 testing and treatment for underserved populations by leveraging a community-engaged research toolkit. Future dissemination of the toolkit can support effective community-academic partnerships for health interventions in underserved settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05455190 . Registered 13 July 2022.

Assessing the Role of Trust in Public Health Agencies and COVID-19 Vaccination Status Among a Community Sample of African Americans in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Mistrust of the government and medical establishments are prominent reasons for vaccine hesitancy among African Americans (AAs). As COVID-19 research evolves in real time with some uncertainties remaining, AA communities may be less trusting of public health agencies. The purpose of these analyses was to assess the association between trust in public health agencies that recommend the COVID-19 vaccination and COVID-19 vaccination status among AAs in North Carolina. METHODS: A 75-item cross-sectional survey, the Triad Pastors Network COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccination survey, was developed and administered to African Americans in North Carolina. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between levels of trust in public health agencies who recommend the COVID-19 vaccine and COVID-19 vaccination status among AAs. RESULTS: Of the 1157 AAs included in these analyses, approximately 14% of AAs had not received the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings indicated that lower levels of trust in public health agencies significantly decreased the odds of getting the COVID-19 vaccination compared to those with higher levels of trust among AAs. The most trusted source for information on COVID-19 included federal agencies among all respondents. Among the vaccinated, primary care physicians were another trusted source of information. Pastors were another trusted source for those willing to be vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority of the respondents in this sample receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, subgroups of AAs remain unvaccinated. Federal agencies have a high level of trust among AA adults; however, innovative approaches are needed to reach AAs who remain unvaccinated.

At-home testing to mitigate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2: protocol for a public health intervention with a nested prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to evolve as a global health crisis. Although highly effective vaccines have been developed, non-pharmaceutical interventions remain critical to controlling disease transmission. One such intervention-rapid, at-home antigen self-testing-can ease the burden associated with facility-based testing programs and improve testing access in high-risk communities. However, its impact on SARS-CoV-2 community transmission has yet to be definitively evaluated, and the socio-behavioral aspects of testing in underserved populations remain unknown. METHODS: As part of the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics-Underserved Populations (RADx-UP) program funded by the National Institutes of Health, we are implementing a public health intervention titled "Say Yes! COVID Test" (SYCT) involving at-home self-testing using a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen assay in North Carolina (Greenville, Pitt County) and Tennessee (Chattanooga City, Hamilton County). The intervention is supported by a multifaceted communication and community engagement strategy to ensure widespread awareness and uptake, particularly in marginalized communities. Participants receive test kits either through online orders or via local community distribution partners. To assess the impact of this intervention on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, we will conduct a non-randomized, ecological study using community-level outcomes. Specifically, we will evaluate trends in SARS-CoV-2 cases and hospitalizations, SARS-CoV-2 viral load in wastewater, and population mobility in each community before, during, and after the SYCT intervention. Individuals who choose to participate in SYCT will also have the option to enroll in an embedded prospective cohort substudy gathering participant-level data to evaluate behavioral determinants of at-home self-testing and socio-behavioral mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. DISCUSSION: This is the first large-scale, public health intervention implementing rapid, at-home SARS-CoV-2 self-testing in the United States. The program consists of a novel combination of an at-home testing program, a broad communications and community engagement strategy, an ecological study to assess impact, and a research substudy of the behavioral aspects of testing. The findings from the SYCT project will provide insights into innovative methods to mitigate viral transmission, advance the science of public health communications and community engagement, and evaluate emerging, novel assessments of community transmission of disease.

Recognizing Cross-Institutional Fiscal and Administrative Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Community-Engaged Clinical and Translational Research.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study examined fiscal and administrative (i.e., pre- and post-award grants process) barriers and facilitators to community-engaged research among stakeholders across 4 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions. METHOD: A purposive sample of 24 key informants from 3 stakeholder groups-community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators-from the CTSA institutions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medical University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Yale University participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-July 2018, including questions about perceived challenges and best practices in fiscal and administrative processes in community-engaged research. Transcribed interviews were independently reviewed and analyzed using the Rapid Assessment Process to facilitate key theme and quote identification. RESULTS: Community partners were predominantly Black, academic researchers and research administrators were predominantly White, and women made up two-thirds of the overall sample. Five key themes were identified: level of partnership equity, partnership collaboration and communication, institutional policies and procedures, level of familiarity with varying fiscal and administrative processes, and financial management expectations. No stakeholders reported best practices for the institutional policies and procedures theme. Cross-cutting challenges included communication gaps between stakeholder groups; lack of or limits in supporting community partners' fiscal capacity; and lack of collective awareness of each stakeholder group's processes, procedures, and needs. Cross-cutting best practices centered on shared decision making and early and timely communication between all stakeholder groups in both pre- and post-award processes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of equitable processes, triangulated communication, transparency, and recognizing and respecting different financial management cultures within community-engaged research. This work can be a springboard used by CTSA institutions to build on available resources that facilitate co-learning and discussions between community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators on fiscal readiness and administrative processes for improved community-engaged research partnerships.

Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community-engaged research have been established in the past 25 years as valued research approaches within health education, public health, and other health and social sciences for their effectiveness in reducing inequities. While early literature focused on partnering principles and processes, within the past decade, individual studies, as well as systematic reviews, have increasingly documented outcomes in community support and empowerment, sustained partnerships, healthier behaviors, policy changes, and health improvements. Despite enhanced focus on research and health outcomes, the science lags behind the practice. CBPR partnering pathways that result in outcomes remain little understood, with few studies documenting best practices. Since 2006, the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research with the University of Washington's Indigenous Wellness Research Institute and partners across the country has engaged in targeted investigations to fill this gap in the science. Our inquiry, spanning three stages of National Institutes of Health funding, has sought to identify which partnering practices, under which contexts and conditions, have capacity to contribute to health, research, and community outcomes. This article presents the research design of our current grant, Engage for Equity, including its history, social justice principles, theoretical bases, measures, intervention tools and resources, and preliminary findings about collective empowerment as our middle range theory of change. We end with lessons learned and recommendations for partnerships to engage in collective reflexive practice to strengthen internal power-sharing and capacity to reach health and social equity outcomes.

Development and validation of the Person-Centeredness of Research Scale.

AIM: Person-centeredness shifts the focus of healthcare and research to the needs and priorities of patients and communities, and may improve health outcomes. There are no instruments available, however, with which we can assess the degree to which research is indeed person-centered. Our aim was to develop and validate a quantitative instrument to rate person-centeredness of research. MATERIALS & METHODS: Scale development and validation entailed a multistep approach that led to the seven-item Person Centeredness of Research Scale (PCoR Scale) that uses a 5-point Likert rating scale. The scale was validated using ratings of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts or abstracts submitted to a translational science meeting. RESULTS: Psychometric properties of the PCoR Scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96). All seven items were highly correlated with the total score (rs range from 0.63 to 0.90). An exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all of the items loaded on a single factor, explaining 80% of the variance. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts had a mean PCoR Scale score of 6.52 (±8.01) that was significantly higher than the abstracts submitted to the translational science meeting (-2.56 (±9.18); t = 8.09; p < 0.0001). Inter-rater reliability in the validation of the revised instrument was high (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC](group1) = 0.89; ICC(group2) = 0.95). CONCLUSION: This brief, quantitative rating scale is the first to assess the main constructs that describe person-centeredness of research products. The PCoR Scale can be used to assess person-centeredness in research products; for example, by funders evaluating proposals, data networks evaluating data requests or researchers evaluating their research designs.

Stakeholder-driven, consensus development methods to design an ethical framework and guidelines for engaged research.

Increasingly, researchers seek to engage communities, patients, and stakeholders as partners in the process and products of health research. However, there is no existing stakeholder-driven ethical framework for such engaged scholarship. We employed an iterative, stakeholder-engaged method to develop a data-driven framework for the ethical review and conduct of engaged scholarship. We used consensus development conference methods and a modified Delphi survey to engage 240 community members, ethicists, and academic researchers. This multi-staged process produced a framework with 4 domains: vision of equitable and just research, relationship dynamics, community-informed risk/benefits assessment, and accountability. Within the framework, 4 cross-cutting considerations and 15 statements explicate the stakeholders' priorities for the ethical review and conduct of engaged scholarship. Though the findings are promising, the study is limited in that it focuses on stakeholder perspectives, but does not actually evaluate or apply the findings in the field. The stakeholder-engaged framework provides a platform for further articulation of ethical practices and policy for engaged scholarship.

Where Is the Community Dimension in the Updated Common Rule?

THE PROBLEM: Changes to the Federal Policy for the Pro tection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule) as presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are both logical and necessary. However, the proposed changes con tinue to focus entirely on the individual and fail to take into account the rapidlyemerging types of research that involve patients and communities directly in the research process.Purpose of Article: We propose several changes and amendments that address the interests of communities and underscore the principle of justice, especially social justice. KEY POINTS: Our recommendations seek to revise human subjects' protections that currently overemphasize individualism and autonomy to reflect a collectivist ethos that would extend protections to communities engaged in medical research. CONCLUSION: We believe this is necessary to effectively and efficiently conduct the types of research that will ultimately rectify health inequities that continue to exist in many communities, but particularly communities of color.

Prostate Cancer Ambassadors: Process and Outcomes of a Prostate Cancer Informed Decision-Making Training Program.

African American men bear a higher burden of prostate cancer than Caucasian men, but knowledge about how to make an informed decision about prostate cancer screening is limited. A lay health advisor model was used to train "Prostate Cancer Ambassadors" on prostate cancer risk and symptoms, how to make an informed decision for prostate-specific antigen screening, and how to deliver the information to members of their community. Training consisted of two, 6-hour interactive sessions and was implemented in three predominantly African American communities over an 8-month period between 2013 and 2014. Following training, Ambassadors committed to contacting at least 10 people within 3 months using a toolkit composed of wallet-sized informational cards for distribution, a slide presentation, and a flip chart. Thirty-two Ambassadors were trained, with more than half being females (59%) and half reporting a family history of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer knowledge improved significantly among Ambassadors ( p ≤ .0001). Self-efficacy improved significantly for performing outreach tasks ( p < .0001), and among women in helping a loved one with making an informed decision ( p = .005). There was also an improvement in collective efficacy in team members ( p = .0003). Twenty-nine of the Ambassadors fulfilled their commitment to reach at least 10 people (average number of contacts per Ambassador was 11). In total, 355 individuals were reached with the prostate cancer information. The Ambassador training program proved successful in training Ambassadors to reach communities about prostate cancer and how to make an informed decision about screening.

Prostate Cancer Ambassadors: Enhancing a Theory-Informed Training Program for Informed Decision-Making.

Despite the high burden of prostate cancer in African American communities, there is a paucity of knowledge about prostate health. This paper describes the enhancement of a curriculum for training lay health advisors, called prostate cancer ambassadors, on informed decision-making for prostate cancer screening. Adult learning theory informed the structuring of the training sessions to be interactive, self-directed, and engaging. Trainings were developed in a manner that made the material relevant to the learners and encouraged co-learning. The research team developed strategies, such as using discussions and interactive activities, to help community members weigh the pros and cons of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and to make an informed decision about screening. Furthermore, activities were developed to bolster four social cognitive theory constructs: observational learning, self-efficacy for presenting information to the community and for making an informed decision themselves, collective efficacy for presenting information to the community, and outcome expectations from those presentations. Games, discussions, and debates were included to make learning fun and encourage discovery. Practice sessions and team-building activities were designed to build self-efficacy for sharing information about informed decision-making. Topics added to the original curriculum included updates on prostate cancer screening, informed decision-making for screening, skills for being a lay health advisor, and ethics. This dynamic model and approach to lay health advisor (ambassador) training is flexible: while it was tailored for use with prostate cancer education, it can be adjusted for use with other types of cancer and even other diseases.

What is the role of culture, diversity, and community engagement in transdisciplinary translational science?

Concepts of culture and diversity are necessary considerations in the scientific application of theory generation and developmental processes of preventive interventions; yet, culture and/or diversity are often overlooked until later stages (e.g., adaptation [T3] and dissemination [T4]) of the translational science process. Here, we present a conceptual framework focused on the seamless incorporation of culture and diversity throughout the various stages of the translational science process (T1-T5). Informed by a community-engaged research approach, this framework guides integration of cultural and diversity considerations at each phase with emphasis on the importance and value of "citizen scientists" being research partners to promote ecological validity. The integrated partnership covers the first phase of intervention development through final phases that ultimately facilitate more global, universal translation of changes in attitudes, norms, and systems. Our comprehensive model for incorporating culture and diversity into translational research provides a basis for further discussion and translational science development.

Building Capacity in a Rural North Carolina Community to Address Prostate Health Using a Lay Health Advisor Model.

Background Prostate cancer is a critical concern for African Americans in North Carolina (NC), and innovative strategies are needed to help rural African American men maximize their prostate health. Engaging the community in research affords opportunities to build capacity for teaching and raising awareness. Approach and Strategies A community steering committee of academicians, community partners, religious leaders, and other stakeholders modified a curriculum on prostate health and screening to include interactive knowledge- and skill-building activities. This curriculum was then used to train 15 African American lay health advisors, dubbed Prostate Cancer Ambassadors, in a rural NC community. Over the 2-day training, Ambassadors achieved statistically significant improvements in knowledge of prostate health and maintained confidence in teaching. The Ambassadors, in turn, used their personal networks to share their knowledge with over 1,000 individuals in their community. Finally, the Ambassadors became researchers, implementing a prostate health survey in local churches. Discussion and Conclusions It is feasible to use community engagement models for raising awareness of prostate health in NC African American communities. Mobilizing community coalitions to develop curricula ensures that the curricula meet the communities' needs, and training lay health advisors to deliver curricula helps secure community buy-in for the information.

Evaluating a community-partnered cancer clinical trials pilot intervention with African American communities.

Cancer clinical trial (CCT) accrual and retention rates remain disproportionately low among African Americans. Awarenesss and access to trials are crucial facilitators of trial participation. Strategies developed within a community-based participatory framework (CBPR) are potential solutions to increase awareness and access to CCTs. In this study, we describe the pilot phase of three innovative community-centered modules to improve basic CCT knowledge, awareness of locations to access CCT information, and opportunities to participate in CCTs. Four community organizations completed Community Bridges to CCT training-of-the-trainer and recruited adult African American volunteers to participate in one of three CCT education modules: a workshop about CCTs, a role play describing one person's experience with CCTs, or a call and response session reviewing myths and facts about CCTs. Pre- and post-test surveys were collected and analyzed using McNemar agreement statistic to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes regarding trials. Trainers enrolled 125 participants in the call and response (n = 22), role play (n = 60), and workshop (n = 43) modules. Module participants were mostly African American, female, and with a mean age of 53 years. Comparison of pre- and post-test responses demonstrates favorable changes in awareness of CCTs and where to access CCTs across the sample. Analysis by module type indicates significant increases for participants in the call and response (p < 0.01) and role play modules (p < 0.001), but not the workshop module. Despite measures taken to increase the participation and retention rate of African Americans in clinical trials, little advancement has been made. Developing tailored community education modules on CCTs within the CBPR framework is a promising innovation to increase knowledge about CCTs and favorable attitudes about participation that are known precursors to trial enrollment.

Collaborative development of clinical trials education programs for African-American community-based organizations.

This paper describes the use of a unique "Learning and FeedbackË® approach to customize cancer clinical trials education programs for Community Bridges, a peer training intervention designed for African-American communities in North Carolina. Generic community education modules were demonstrated with key community leaders who were designated as trainers. Quantitative and qualitative assessments were provided on understanding of content, comfort with material, and cultural relevance. The generic materials were adapted into three revised modules, all featuring key messages about cancer clinical trials, discussion regarding distrust of medical research, common misconceptions about trials, patient protections, and a call to action to prompt increased inquiry about locally available trials. The revised modules were then used as part of a train-the-trainer program with 12 African-American community leaders. ENACCT's use of the Learning and Feedback process is an innovative method for culturally adapting clinical trials education.

African American women's perceptions of cancer clinical trials.

Cancer clinical trials are important for resolving cancer health disparities for several reasons; however, clinical trial participation among African Americans is significantly lower than Caucasians. This study engaged focus groups of 82 female African American cancer survivors or cancer caregivers, including those in better resourced, more urban areas and less resourced, more rural areas. Informed by an integrated conceptual model, the focus groups examined perceptions of cancer clinical trials and identified leverage points that future interventions may use to improve enrollment rates. Study findings highlight variation in community knowledge regarding cancer clinical trials, and the importance of community education regarding clinical trials and overcoming historical stigma associated with clinical research specifically and the health care system more generally. Study participants commented on the centrality of churches in their communities, and thus the promise of the church as loci of such education. Findings also suggested the value of informed community leaders as community information sources, including community members who have a previous diagnosis of cancer and clinical trial experience. The sample size and location of the focus groups may limit the generalizability of the results. Since the women in the focus groups were either cancer survivors or caregivers, they may have different experiences than nonparticipants who lack the close connection with cancer. Trust in the health system and in one's physician was seen as important factors associated with patient willingness to enroll in clinical trials, and participants suggested that physicians who were compassionate and who engaged and educated their patients would build important trust requisite for patient participation in clinical trials.

Community representatives' involvement in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee activities.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the formal roles of community representatives (CRs) in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) activities, to evaluate the extent of integration into the organizational and governance structures and to identify barriers to effective integration. METHODS: The inventory tool was distributed to each of the 60 CTSAs using a secure web application. RESULTS: Forty-seven (78%) completed the inventory. The mean number of CRs per CTSA is 21.4 (SD: 14.8). Most CTSAs had community advisory boards (89%) and 94% included CRs in Community Engagement (CE) cores. Only 11% reported a CR being a member of the CTSA leadership team and 19% reported that CRs advise core programs beyond CE. CRs are compensated by 79% of CTSAs. Mean annual compensation is $753 (median: $400). Compensation directly correlated with the number of hours that CRs worked in CTSA activities (r = 0.64; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This inventory allows CTSAs to better understand how CRs have engaged in activities and brings attention to the limited representation among cores and in leadership roles. CTSAs should, with substantive input from CRs, develop strategies to provide the resources and compensation necessary to better integrate the community in CTSA activities and fully realize the goals of the CTSA vision.