Effect of neighborhood and individual-level socioeconomic factors on breast cancer screening adherence in a multi-ethnic study.

BACKGROUND: Although mammography can significantly reduce breast cancer mortality, many women do not receive their annual breast cancer screening. Differences in screening adherence exist by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance status. However, more detailed investigations into the impact of neighborhood disadvantage and access to resources on screening adherence are lacking. METHODS: We comprehensively examined the effect of individual social, economic, and demographic factors (n = 34 variables), as well as neighborhood level SES (nSES) indicators (n = 10 variables) on breast cancer screening adherence across a multi-ethnic population (n = 472). In this cross-sectional study, participants were surveyed from 2017 to 2018. The data was analyzed using univariate regression and LASSO for variable reduction. Significant predictors were carried forward into final multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models where odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals and p-values were reported. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of participants were non-adherent to breast screening guidelines. Race/ethnicity was not associated with adherence; however, increasing age (OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.95-0.99, p = 0.01), renting a home (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.30-0.94, p = 0.04), food insecurity (OR 0.46, 95%CI = 0.22-0.94, p = 0.01), and overcrowding (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.32-0.94, p = 0.01) were significantly associated with lower breast cancer screening adherence. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic indicators at the individual and neighborhood levels impact low breast cancer screening adherence and may help to inform future screening interventions.

The effect of social determinants of health on utilization of surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: A paucity of data exists on how social determinants of health (SDOH) influence treatment for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated associations between SDOH (healthcare access, education, social/community context, economic stability, and built/neighborhood environment) and receipt of surgery. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Liver Cancer Registry was linked with neighborhood SDOH from the American Community Survey. Multilevel logistic regression models with patient and neighborhood SDOH variables were developed. RESULTS: Of 9423 HCC patients, 2393 were stage I. Only 36.3% of stage I patients received surgery. Black patients had significantly lower odds of surgery vs Whites (OR = 0.73; p < 0.01), but not after adjustments for SDOH. All 5 SDOH domains were associated with odds of surgery overall; 2 domains were associated in Stage I patients, social context (e.g., racial concentration, p = 0.03) and insurance access (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SDOH impact utilization of surgery for HCC. Findings can guide healthcare professionals to create programs for populations at risk for poor liver cancer outcomes.

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.

Development of an Actionable Framework to Address Cancer Care Disparities in Medically Underserved Populations in the United States: Expert Roundtable Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Cancer disparities persist among medically underserved populations despite widespread efforts to address them. We describe the development of a framework for addressing cancer care disparities across the cancer care continuum (CCC), guided by the CCC domains established by the Institute of Medicine/National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (IOM/NAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An environmental scan was conducted to identify strategies and associated experts who are providing or have successfully provided community- and/or patient-centric IOM/NAS-defined domain standards to our target populations. A multistakeholder expert roundtable working group was convened for framework development. A premeeting survey informed agenda development, documented expert practices for target populations, and identified priority areas for meeting focus. RESULTS: The environmental scan identified 84 unique experts across 8 stakeholder groups and 44 patient organizations; 50 were invited to the roundtable and 33 participated. They broadly represented disease sites, geography, and experience with target populations and all CCC domains. The premeeting survey (16 responses) identified coordination of care or patient navigation (66.7%), community engagement (60.0%), and healthcare system changes (53.3%) as priority focus areas. The experts identified access and treatment barriers or gaps within and between CCC domains, specified key notable practices to address these, and developed an actionable framework and recommendations for each priority focus area. CONCLUSION: The framework and recommendations are intended to guide researchers, healthcare leaders, advocates, community- and patient-focused service organizations, and policy leaders to address and promote health equity in cancer care access and treatment outcomes.

Effect of Neighborhood and Individual-Level Socioeconomic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence.

Despite the effectiveness of screenings in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, ~25% of US adults do not adhere to screening guidelines. Prior studies associate socioeconomic status (SES) with low screening adherence and suggest that neighborhood deprivation can influence CRC outcomes. We comprehensively investigated the effect of neighborhood SES circumstances (nSES), individual SES, and race/ethnicity on adherence to CRC screening in a multiethnic cross-sectional study. Participant surveys assessing 32 individual-level socioeconomic and healthcare access measures were administered from 2017 to 2018. Participant data were joined with nine nSES measures from the US Census at the census tract level. Univariate, LASSO, and multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for variable reduction and evaluation of associations. The total study population included 526 participants aged 50-85; 29% of participants were non-adherent. In the final multivariable model, age (p = 0.02) and Non-Hispanic Black race (p = 0.02) were associated with higher odds of adherence. Factors associated with lower adherence were home rental (vs. ownership) (p = 0.003), perception of low healthcare quality (p = 0.006), no routine checkup within two years (p = 0.002), perceived discrimination (p = 0.02), and nSES deprivation (p = 0.02). After comprehensive variable methods were applied, socioeconomic indicators at the neighborhood and individual level were found to contribute to low CRC screening adherence.

Liver Cancer Incidence and Area-Level Geographic Disparities in Pennsylvania-A Geo-Additive Approach.

Many neighborhood socioeconomic index measures (nSES) that capture neighborhood deprivation exist but the impact of measure selection on liver cancer (LC) geographic disparities remains unclear. We introduce a Bayesian geoadditive modeling approach to identify clusters in Pennsylvania (PA) with higher than expected LC incidence rates, adjusted for individual-level factors (age, sex, race, diagnosis year) and compared them to models with 7 different nSES index measures to elucidate the impact of nSES and measure selection on LC geospatial variation. LC cases diagnosed from 2007-2014 were obtained from the PA Cancer Registry and linked to nSES measures from U.S. census at the Census Tract (CT) level. Relative Risks (RR) were estimated for each CT, adjusted for individual-level factors (baseline model). Each nSES measure was added to the baseline model and changes in model fit, geographic disparity and state-wide RR ranges were compared. All 7 nSES measures were strongly associated with high risk clusters. Tract-level RR ranges and geographic disparity from the baseline model were attenuated after adjustment for nSES measures. Depending on the nSES measure selected, up to 60% of the LC burden could be explained, suggesting methodologic evaluations of multiple nSES measures may be warranted in future studies to inform LC prevention efforts.

Towards precision public health: Geospatial analytics and sensitivity/specificity assessments to inform liver cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVES: Liver cancer (LC) continues to rise, partially due to limited resources for prevention. To test the precision public health (PPH) hypothesis that fewer areas in need of LC prevention could be identified by combining existing surveillance data, we compared the sensitivity/specificity of standard recommendations to target geographic areas using U.S. Census demographic data only (percent (%) Hispanic, Black, and those born 1950-1959) to an alternative approach that couples additional geospatial data, including neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), with LC disease statistics. METHODS: Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data from 2007-2014 were linked to 2010 U.S. Census data at the Census tract (CT) level. CTs in the top 80th percentile for 3 standard demographic variables, %Hispanic, %Black, %born 1950-1959, were identified. Spatial scan statistics (SatScan) identified CTs with significantly elevated incident LC rates (p-value<0.05), adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis year. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of a CT being located in an elevated risk cluster and/or testing positive/negative for at least one standard variable were calculated. nSES variables (deprivation, stability, segregation) significantly associated with LC in regression models (p < 0.05) were systematically evaluated for improvements in sensitivity/specificity. RESULTS: 9,460 LC cases were diagnosed across 3,217 CTs. 1,596 CTs were positive for at least one of 3 standard variables. 5 significant elevated risk clusters (CTs = 402) were identified. 324 CTs were positive for a high risk cluster AND standard variable (sensitivity = 92%; specificity = 37%; PPV = 17.4%). Incorporation of 3 new nSES variables with one standard variable (%Black) further improved sensitivity (93%), specificity (62.9%), and PPV (26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: We introduce a quantitative assessment of PPH by applying established sensitivity/specificity assessments to geospatial data. Coupling existing disease cluster and nSES data can more precisely identify intervention targets with a liver cancer burden than standard demographic variables. Thus, this approach may inform prioritization of limited resources for liver cancer prevention.

Insurance Stability and Cancer Screening Behaviors.

Background: Disparities in rates of cancer screening are observed in underserved populations. Lack of stable health insurance may contribute to these disparities. The goal of this study was to examine the association between insurance stability and up-to-date cancer screening in underserved populations. Methods and Findings: We enrolled 333 community participants aged 40-74 years across four different sites in three states: Chinese Americans in Boston, Massachusetts; Hispanics in Columbus, Ohio; Appalachian populations from Ohio's Appalachian counties; and Blacks and African Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Self-reported screening rates were 77.9% for breast cancer, 71.1% for cervical cancer, and 67.7% for colorectal cancer (CRC). Screening rates fell short of Health People 2020 targets for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings. Being currently insured was associated with current CRC screenings (69.7% among insured vs. 30.7% among uninsured, p=0.0055), but not with breast or cervical cancer screenings. Stable 12-month insurance coverage was not statistically associated with up-to-date screenings. Conclusion: Having current insurance was associated with CRC screening; stability of insurance was not associated with cancer screening. Insurance coverage alone is not the main driver of cancer screening.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics. METHODS: We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI. IMPACT: Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

Health Literacy: Cancer Prevention Strategies for Early Adults.

Health literacy, the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand health information and services needed to make health decisions, is an essential element for early adults (aged 18-44 years) to make informed decisions about cancer. Low health literacy is one of the social determinants of health associated with cancer-related disparities. Over the past several years, a nonprofit organization, a university, and a cancer center in a major urban environment have developed and implemented health literacy programs within healthcare systems and in the community. Health system personnel received extensive health literacy training to reduce medical jargon and improve their patient education using plain language easy-to-understand written materials and teach-back, and also designed plain language written materials including visuals to provide more culturally and linguistically appropriate health education and enhance web-based information. Several sustainable health system policy changes occurred over time. At the community level, organizational assessments and peer leader training on health literacy have occurred to reduce communication barriers between consumers and providers. Some of these programs have been cancer specific, including consumer education in such areas as cervical cancer, skin cancer, and breast cancer that are targeted to early adults across the cancer spectrum from prevention to treatment to survivorship. An example of consumer-driven health education that was tested for health literacy using a comic book-style photonovel on breast cancer with an intergenerational family approach for Chinese Americans is provided. Key lessons learned from the health literacy initiatives and overall conclusions of the health literacy initiatives are also summarized.