Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving. OBJECTIVE: Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results. DESIGN: A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts. MAIN MEASURES: Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines. KEY RESULTS: In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model.

BACKGROUND: Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration. RESULTS: The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

Understanding the effect of new U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines and modalities on patients' comprehension and reporting of their cervical cancer screening behavior.

With recent shifts in guideline-recommended cervical cancer screening in the U.S., it is important to accurately measure screening behavior. Previous studies have indicated the U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a resource for measuring self-reported screening adherence, has lower validity among non-White racial/ethnic groups and non-English speakers. Further, measuring diverse population groups' comprehension of items and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling merits investigation as it is a modality likely to be recommended in the U.S. soon. This study cognitively tested NHIS items assessing recency of and reasons for receiving cervical cancer screening and attitudes toward HPV self-sampling. We conducted cognitive interviews between April 2021 - April 2022 in English and Spanish with individuals screened in the past two years by either a medical center in metropolitan Seattle, Washington or a safety-net healthcare system in Dallas, Texas. Interviews probed understanding of reasons for screening, experiences with abnormal results, and interest in HPV self-sampling. We completed 32 interviews in Seattle and 42 interviews in Dallas. A majority of participants were unaware that two different tests for cervical cancer screening exist (Pap and HPV). Many did not know which type(s) of test they received. Dallas participants had more limited and inaccurate knowledge of HPV compared to Seattle participants, and fewer responded favorably toward HPV self-sampling (32% vs. 55%). To improve comprehension and accurate reporting of cervical cancer screening, we suggest specific refinements to currently used survey questions. Attitudes toward self-sampling should be explored further as differences may exist by region and/or sociodemographic factors.

Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems.

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force endorsed primary human papillomavirus testing (pHPV) for cervical cancer screening. We aimed to describe providers' beliefs about pHPV testing effectiveness and which screening approach they regularly recommend. We invited providers who performed 10 or more cervical cancer screens in 2019 in 3 healthcare systems that had not adopted pHPV testing: Kaiser Permanente Washington, Mass General Brigham, and Parkland Health; 53.7% (501/933) completed the survey between October and December 2020. Response distributions varied across modalities (P < .001), with cytology alone or cotesting being more often viewed as somewhat or very effective for 30- to 65-year-olds compared with pHPV (cytology alone 94.1%, cotesting 96.1%, pHPV 66.0%). In 21- to 29-year-olds, the pattern was similar (cytology alone 92.2%, 64.7% cotesting, 50.8% pHPV). Most providers were either incorrect or unsure of the guideline-recommended screening interval for pHPV. Educational efforts are needed about the relative effectiveness and recommended use of pHPV to promote guideline-concordant care.

Anal cancer screening among women with HIV: provider experiences and system-level challenges.

Women living with HIV (WLWH) are at increased risk of anal cancer compared to women without HIV, often due to persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infections. This paper describes current practices and challenges conducting anal cancer screening for WLWH at an urban integrated safety-net system and a non-profit community-based HIV clinic. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative stakeholders to assess knowledge, clinic practices and procedures, and experiences with anal cancer screening. Interview transcripts and fieldnotes were thematically analyzed using an iterative deductive and inductive coding scheme. Findings were organized by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains and constructs. Provider-level barriers to conducting anal cancer screening included limited knowledge of guidelines. System-level barriers included: structural characteristics such as lack of coordination between clinics to discern provider roles and responsibilities; and limitations in available resources such as configuration of electronic health records and infrastructure to manage referrals of abnormal anal Pap results. We conclude that anal cancer screening and follow-up for WLWH requires organization and coordination between multiple care teams, updated clinical information systems to facilitate communication and support anal Pap ordering and result documentation, and infrastructure that includes policies and protocols for management of abnormal results.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02135419.

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

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

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Risk Among Women Living With HIV.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were (1) to describe anal cancer knowledge, perceived risk, screening barriers, and acceptability of sample self-collection among women living with HIV (WLWH) at an integrated safety-net system and (2) to describe differences in demographic and psychosocial variables among a subsample of WLWH with a history of abnormal cervical cytology results versus those with normal results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted telephone surveys with English- and Spanish-speaking WLWH (N = 99) and used electronic health record data to extract insurance type, CD4+ cell count, RNA viral load, and cervical cytology results. We calculated descriptive statistics for participant demographics, HIV laboratory results, and psychosocial variables. Among the subsample of women who completed a recent cervical Pap, we used Fisher exact test to assess differences in demographic variables, CD4+ counts, RNA viral loads, knowledge, awareness, acceptability, and perceived risk by cervical cytology results. RESULTS: Most participants (70%) reported knowing nothing about anal cancer; 28% correctly responded that HIV increases one's chance of getting anal cancer. Most (68%) never heard of an anal Pap test. Forty percent would get an anal Pap if they could self-collect the sample, whereas 59% were neutral or disagreed. The 2 most commonly cited barriers to obtaining an anal Pap were "I do not know enough about it" (n = 15) and "It might hurt" (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights a gap in knowledge and awareness among WLWH regarding their heightened risk for anal cancer. It indicates the need for health education and suggests an opportunity for a self-collection intervention.

Patient and provider-level barriers to hepatitis C screening and linkage to care: A mixed-methods evaluation.

Achieving practice change can be challenging when guidelines shift from a selective risk-based strategy to a broader population health strategy, as occurred for hepatitis C (HCV) screening (2012-2013). We aimed to evaluate patient and provider barriers that contributed to suboptimal HCV screening and linkage-to-care rates after implementation of an intervention to improve HCV screening and linkage-to-care processes in a large, public integrated healthcare system following the guidelines change. As part of a mixed-methods study, we collected data through patient surveys (n = 159), focus groups (n = 9) and structured observation of providers and staff (n = 9). We used these findings to then inform domains for the second phase, which consisted of semi-structured interviews with patients across the screening-treatment continuum (n = 24) and providers and staff at primary care and hepatology clinics (n = 21). We transcribed and thematically analysed interviews using an integrated inductive and deductive framework. We identified lack of clarity about treatment cost, treatment complications and likelihood of cure as ongoing patient-level barriers to screening and linkage to care. Provider-level barriers included scepticism about establishing HCV screening as a quality metric given competing clinical priorities, particularly for patients with multiple comorbidities. However, most felt positively about adding HCV as a quality metric to enhance HCV screening and linkage to care. Provider engagement yielded suggestions for process improvements that resulted in increased stakeholder buy-in and real-time enhancements to the HCV screening process intervention. Systematic data collection at baseline and during practice change implementation may facilitate adoption and adaptation to improve HCV screening guideline implementation. Findings identified several key opportunities and lessons to enhance the impact of practice change interventions to improve HCV screening and treatment delivery.

Patient-Centered Measure Development and Spanish Validation Exemplar.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) often results in cognitive impairments that require investigators to consider language accessibility of survey instruments, clinical evaluations, and other research tools. We describe an iterative language validation process for the Behavioral Assessment Screening Tool (BAST) and BAST Spanish version (BAST-ESP), consisting of two phases: (1) achieving an accessible literacy level for English-speaking people with TBI and (2) translating, validating, and cognitively testing the BAST-ESP for Spanish-speaking people with TBI. Investigators recruited scientific experts and members of the target populations to adapt and test the surveys. Modifications to original survey instruments included simplified semantic structures, enhanced conceptual clarity, rephrased idiomatic expressions, and rewording to bridge cultural differences in linguistic connotation. Findings from participants in focus groups and cognitive interviews confirmed accuracy and ease of comprehension and informed further adjustments and content relevant to the specific target populations. We demonstrate the importance of a systematic adaptation and validation process to develop a lower-literacy instrument appropriate for people with cognitive deficits and to enhance the BAST-ESP beyond translation alone. This article, along with a previously published article about BAST content validity process, provides a road map for other investigators to conduct systematic adaptation of scientific instruments for low-literacy and non-English-speaking populations. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(4):e243-e249.].

Patient and provider perspectives on delivery of oral cancer therapies.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of oral cancer therapies presents new challenges to delivery of quality cancer care. Little is known about how patients and providers address and overcome these challenges. We conducted a qualitative study exploring the range of patient and provider perspectives on oral cancer therapies. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and providers at a tertiary referral center and county safety-net hospital in Dallas, TX. Interviews probed perspectives on differences between parenteral chemotherapy and oral therapies, adherence, communication, and cost/insurance. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically using a deductively-driven coding scheme corresponding to the interview guide. RESULTS: We conducted 22 patient (13 at tertiary referral center, 9 at safety-net hospital) and 10 provider (7 oncologists, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist) interviews. Key themes from interviews included: (1) differences in parenteral chemotherapy vs. oral therapy; (2) adherence and dosing; and (3) experiences related to cost and communication. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all providers described challenges engaging with and educating patients about oral cancer therapies. Despite our initial hypothesis, safety-net patients encountered few barriers accessing oral therapies compared to patients receiving care in the tertiary referral center. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings will guide future interventions to monitor and support cancer patients receiving oral therapies.

Effects of program scale-up on time to resolution for patients with abnormal screening mammography results.

PURPOSE: Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties. METHODS: We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services. RESULTS: TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.

Parent-Provider Communication of HPV Vaccine Hesitancy.

: media-1vid110.1542/5754332185001PEDS-VA_2017-2312Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: To prevent human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers, providers must effectively communicate with HPV vaccine-hesitant parents. Here, we developed a typology characterizing parent-provider communication around HPV vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: We audio-recorded 43 visits with unvaccinated adolescents at 6 pediatric clinics in Dallas, Texas in which parents were undecided about HPV vaccination. We qualitatively coded how parents verbally expressed hesitancy (assertive response, asking a question, or expressing concern) and whether providers responded with acquiescence (agree to defer vaccination) and/or persistence (continue discussion). We described the frequency of parent and provider communication codes and same-day vaccination. RESULTS: Among the 43 visits, 37 parents expressed hesitancy ≥1 times in many ways. Assertive responses were most common (27 visits), followed by questions (16 visits), and concerns (12 visits). When the first expression of hesitancy was a question or concern, 71% and 75% of adolescents, respectively, received same-day vaccinations, whereas 33% of adolescents who received an initial assertive response were vaccinated. Providers responded with only persistence in 18 visits, a mix of acquiescence and persistence in 13 visits, and only acquiescence in 6 visits. When providers only used persistence, 17 of 18 adolescents were vaccinated; when providers responded with only acquiescence, no adolescents received the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory analysis reveals that providers engaging hesitant parents and addressing their concerns can lead to same-day HPV vaccination. Data reveal that even parents making assertive statements are amenable to influence by providers. Our findings reveal an important missed opportunity when providers simply acquiesce to parental hesitation.

Identifying quality improvement targets to facilitate colorectal cancer screening completion.

The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process involves multiple interfaces (communication exchanges and transfers of responsibility for specific actions) among primary care and gastroenterology providers, laboratory, and administrative staff. After a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analysis discovered substantial clinic variation and low CRC screening prevalence overall in an urban, integrated safety-net system, we launched a qualitative analysis to identify potential quality improvement targets to enhance fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, the system's preferred screening modality. Here, we report examination of organization-, clinic-, and provider-level interfaces over a three-year period (December 2011-October 2014). We deployed in parallel 3 qualitative data collection methods: (1) structured observation (90+ hours, 10 sites); (2) document analysis (n > 100); and (3) semi-structured interviews (n = 41) and conducted iterative thematic analysis in which findings from each method cross-informed subsequent data collection. Thematic analysis was guided by a conceptual model and applied deductive and inductive codes. There was substantial variation in protocols for distributing and returning FIT kits both within and across clinics. Providers, clinic and laboratory staff had differing access to important data about FIT results based on clinical information system used and this affected results reporting. Communication and coordination during electronic referrals for diagnostic colonoscopy was suboptimal particularly for co-morbid patients needing anesthesia clearance. Our multi-level approach elucidated organizational deficiencies not evident by quantitative analysis alone. Findings indicate potential quality improvement intervention targets including: (1) best-practices implementation across clinics; (2) detailed communication to providers about FIT results; and (3) creation of EHR alerts to resolve pending colonoscopy referrals before they expire.

County-level outcomes of a rural breast cancer screening outreach strategy: a decentralized hub-and-spoke model (BSPAN2).

Rural mammography screening remains suboptimal despite reimbursement programs for uninsured women. Networks linking non-clinical community organizations and clinical providers may overcome limited delivery infrastructure in rural areas. Little is known about how networks expand their service area. To evaluate a hub-and-spoke model to expand mammography services to 17 rural counties by assessing county-level delivery and local stakeholder conduct of outreach activities. We conducted a mixed-method evaluation using EMR data, systematic site visits (73 interviews, 51 organizations), 92 patient surveys, and 30 patient interviews. A two-sample t test compared the weighted monthly average of women served between hub- and spoke-led counties; nonparametric trend test evaluated time trend over the study period; Pearson chi-square compared sociodemographic data between hub- and spoke-led counties. From 2013 to 2014, the program screened 4603 underinsured women. Counties where local "spoke" organizations led outreach activities achieved comparable screening rates to hub-led counties (9.2 and 8.7, respectively, p = 0.984) and did not vary over time (p = 0.866). Qualitative analyses revealed influence of program champions, participant language preference, and stakeholders' concerns about uncompensated care. A program that leverages local organizations' ability to identify and reach rural underserved populations is a feasible approach for expanding preventive services delivery.

Assessing local capacity to expand rural breast cancer screening and patient navigation: An iterative mixed-method tool.

BACKGROUND: Despite federal funding for breast cancer screening, fragmented infrastructure and limited organizational capacity hinder access to the full continuum of breast cancer screening and clinical follow-up procedures among rural-residing women. We proposed a regional hub-and-spoke model, partnering with local providers to expand access across North Texas. We describe development and application of an iterative, mixed-method tool to assess county capacity to conduct community outreach and/or patient navigation in a partnership model. METHODS: Our tool combined publicly-available quantitative data with qualitative assessments during site visits and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Application of our tool resulted in shifts in capacity designation in 10 of 17 county partners: 8 implemented local outreach with hub navigation; 9 relied on the hub for both outreach and navigation. Key factors influencing capacity: (1) formal linkages between partner organizations; (2) inter-organizational relationships; (3) existing clinical service protocols; (4) underserved populations. Qualitative data elucidate how our tool captured these capacity changes. CONCLUSIONS: Our capacity assessment tool enabled the hub to establish partnerships with county organizations by tailoring support to local capacity and needs. Absent a vertically integrated provider network for preventive services in these rural counties, our tool facilitated a virtually integrated regional network to extend access to breast cancer screening to underserved women.

Characterizing safety-net providers' HPV vaccine recommendations to undecided parents: A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Although provider recommendation is a key predictor of HPV vaccination, how providers verbalize recommendations particularly strong ones is unknown. We developed a tool to describe strength and content of provider recommendations. METHODS: We used electronic health records to identify unvaccinated adolescents with appointments at six safety-net clinics in Dallas, Texas. Clinic visit audio-recordings were qualitatively analyzed to identify provider recommendation types (presumptive vs. participatory introduction; strong vs. weak), describe content communicated, and explore patterns between recommendation type and vaccination. RESULTS: We analyzed 43 audio-recorded discussions between parents and 12 providers. Most providers used a participatory introduction (42 discussions) and made weak recommendations (24 discussions) by using passive voice or adding a qualification (e.g., not school required). Few providers (11 discussions) gave strong recommendations (clear, personally-owned endorsement). HPV vaccination was lowest for those receiving only weak recommendations and highest when providers coupled the recommendation with an adjacent rationale. CONCLUSION: Our new tool provides initial evidence of how providers undercut their recommendations through qualifications or support them with a rationale. Most providers gave weak HPV vaccine recommendations and used a participatory introduction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Providers would benefit from communication skills training on how to make explicit recommendations with an evidence-based rationale.

Multiple Comorbidities and Interest in Research Participation Among Clients of a Nonprofit Food Distribution Site.

BACKGROUND: Persons accessing food from nonprofit distribution sites face numerous challenges and typically have significant unmet health needs. However, given limited and intermittent healthcare system engagement, this vulnerable population is underrepresented in clinical research. We sought to better understand the health needs of a nonclinical population to inform future research and interventions. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted in English (n = 4) and Spanish (n = 4) with clients of Crossroads Community Services (CCS), the largest distributor of North Texas Food Bank. Discussions probed participants' health status, healthcare utilization, understanding and utilization of mammography, and attitudes toward participation in research. RESULTS: Participants included 42 CCS clients, primarily Hispanic or African American women. Participants reported multiple comorbid conditions among household members, yet utilization of health services was often limited by cost. The majority expressed interest in participating in research to communicate their health concerns and obtain emotional support. CONCLUSION: CCS clients represent a high-need, under-reached population willing to engage in health-related research that affords them opportunity to connect with peers in group settings and obtain information to improve management of daily life challenges. The Community Assistance Research (CARe) Initiative, a community-academic collaboration, establishes a much-needed opportunity for ongoing clinical research and intervention among this underserved population.

Ageism, negative attitudes, and competing co-morbidities--why older adults may not seek care for restricting back pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain, the most common type of pain reported by older adults, is often undertreated for reasons that are poorly understood, especially in minority populations. The objective of this study was to understand older adults' beliefs and perspectives regarding care-seeking for restricting back pain (back pain that restricts activity). METHODS: We used data from a diverse sample of 93 older adults (median age 83) who reported restricting back pain during the past 3 months. A semi-structured discussion guide was used in 23 individual interviews and 16 focus groups to prompt participants to share experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about managing restricting back pain. Transcripts were analyzed in an iterative process to develop thematic categories. RESULTS: Three themes for why older adults may not seek care for restricting back pain were identified: (1) beliefs about the age-related inevitability of restricting back pain, (2) negative attitudes toward medication and/or surgery, and (3) perceived importance of restricting back pain relative to other comorbidities. No new themes emerged in the more diverse focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Illness perceptions (including pain-related beliefs), and interactions with providers may influence older adults' willingness to seek care for restricting back pain. These results highlight opportunities to improve the care for older adults with restricting back pain.