Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden.

Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. Funding: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Protocol for a scoping review of health equity frameworks and models applied in empirical studies of chronic disease prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases, such as cancers and cardiovascular diseases, present the greatest burden of morbidity and mortality worldwide. This burden disproportionately affects historically marginalized populations. Health equity is rapidly gaining increased attention in public health, health services, and implementation research, though many health inequities persist. Health equity frameworks and models (FM) have been called upon to guide equity-focused chronic disease and implementation research. However, there is no clear synthesis of the health equity FM used in chronic disease research or how these are applied in empirical studies. This scoping review seeks to fill this gap by identifying and characterizing health equity FM applied in empirical studies along the chronic disease prevention and control continuum, describing how these FM are used, and exploring potential applications to the field of implementation science. METHODS: We follow established guidance for conducting scoping reviews, which includes six stages: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies for inclusion; (4) data extraction; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) consultation. This protocol presents the iterative, collaborative approach taken to conceptualize this study and develop the search strategy. We describe the criteria for inclusion in this review, methods for conducting two phases of screening (title and abstract, full text), data extraction procedures, and quality assurance approaches taken throughout the project. DISCUSSION: The findings from this review will inform health-equity focused chronic disease prevention and control research. FM identified through this review will be added to an existing website summarizing dissemination and implementation science frameworks, and we will offer case examples and recommendations for utilizing a health equity FM in empirical studies. Our search strategy and review methodology may serve as an example for scholars seeking to conduct reviews of health equity FM in other health disciplines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SFVE6.

Facilitators of Multisector Collaboration for Delivering Cancer Control Interventions in Rural Communities: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Multisector collaboration is a widely promoted strategy to increase equitable availability, access, and use of healthy foods, safe places for physical activity, social supports, and preventive health care services. Yet fewer studies and resources exist for collaboration among governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address public problems in rural areas, despite an excess burden of risk factors for cancer morbidity and mortality. We aimed to learn about cancer prevention activities and collaboration facilitators among rural informal interagency networks. EVALUATION METHODS: In 2020, researchers conducted semistructured interviews with staff from rural public health and social services agencies, community health centers, and extension offices. Agency staff were from 5 service areas across 27 rural counties in Missouri and Illinois with high poverty rates and excess cancer risks and mortality. We conducted a thematic analysis to code interview transcripts and identify key themes. RESULTS: Exchanging information, cohosting annual or one-time events, and promoting other agencies' services and programs were the most commonly described collaborative activities among the 32 participants interviewed. Participants indicated a desire to improve collaborations by writing more grants together to codevelop ongoing prevention programs and further share resources. Participants expressed needs to increase community outreach, improve referral systems, and expand screenings. We identified 5 facilitator themes: commitment to address community needs, mutual willingness to collaborate, long-standing relationships, smaller community structures, and necessity of leveraging limited resources. Challenges included lack of funding and time, long travel distances, competing priorities, difficulty replacing staff in remote communities, and jurisdictional boundaries. Although the COVID-19 pandemic further limited staff availability for collaboration, participants noted benefits of remote collaborative meetings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Rural areas need consistent funding and other resources to support health-improving multisector initiatives. Existing strengths found in the rural underresourced areas can facilitate multisector collaborations for cancer prevention, including long-standing relationships, small community structures, and the need to leverage limited resources.

Social determinants of health and cancer screening implementation and outcomes in the USA: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Improving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. DISCUSSION: By completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021276582 .

Mapping the Lay of the Land: Using Interactive Network Analytic Tools for Collaboration in Rural Cancer Prevention and Control.

BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality rates in the United States are higher in rural than urban areas, especially for colorectal cancer. Modifiable cancer risks (e.g., tobacco use, obesity) are more prevalent among U.S. rural than urban residents. Social network analyses are common, yet rural informal collaborative networks for cancer prevention and control and practitioner uses of network findings are less well understood. METHODS: In five service areas in rural Missouri and Illinois, we conducted a network survey of informal multisector networks among agencies that address cancer risk (N = 152 individuals). The survey asked about contact, collaborative activities, and referrals. We calculated descriptive network statistics and disseminated network visualizations with rural agencies through infographics and interactive Network Navigator platforms. We also collected feedback on uses of network findings from agency staff (N = 14). RESULTS: Service areas had more connections (average degree) for exchanging information than for more time-intensive collaborative activities of co-developing and sustaining ongoing services and programs, and co-developing and sharing resources. On average, collaborative activities were not dependent on just a few agencies to bridge gaps to hold networks together. Users found the network images and information useful for identifying gaps, planning which relationships to establish or enhance to strengthen certain collaborative activities and cross-referrals, and showing network strengths to current and potential funders. CONCLUSIONS: Rural informal cancer prevention and control networks in this study are highly connected and largely decentralized. IMPACT: Disseminating network findings help ensure usefulness to rural health and social service practitioners who address cancer risks.

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Because social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system. METHODS: A survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Athough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

A systematic review of school health policy measurement tools: implementation determinants and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Governments in some countries or states/provinces mandate school-based policies intended to improve the health and well-being of primary and secondary students and in some cases the health of school staff. Examples include mandating a minimum time spent per week in programmed physical activity, mandating provision of healthy foods and limiting fat content of school meals, and banning tobacco products or use on school campuses. Although school health researchers have studied whether schools, districts, or states/provinces are meeting requirements, it is unclear to what extent implementation processes and determinants are assessed. The purposes of the present systematic review of quantitative measures of school policy implementation were to (1) identify quantitative school health policy measurement tools developed to measure implementation at the school, district, or state/provincial levels; (2) describe the policy implementation outcomes and determinants assessed and identify the trends in measurement; and (3) assess pragmatic and psychometric properties of identified implementation measures to understand their quality and suitability for broader application. METHODS: Peer-reviewed journal articles published 1995-2020 were included if they (1) had multiple-item quantitative measures of school policy implementation and (2) addressed overall wellness, tobacco, physical activity, nutrition, obesity prevention, or mental health/bullying/social-emotional learning. The final sample comprised 86 measurement tools from 67 peer-review articles. We extracted study characteristics, such as psychometric and pragmatic measure properties, from included articles based on three frameworks: (1) Implementation Outcomes Framework, (2) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and (3) Policy Implementation Determinants Framework. RESULTS: Most implementation tools were developed to measure overall wellness policies which combined multiple policy topics (n = 35, 40%) and were in survey form (n = 75, 87%). Fidelity was the most frequently prevalent implementation outcome (n = 70, 81%), followed by adoption (n = 32, 81%). The implementation determinants most assessed were readiness for implementation, including resources (n = 43, 50%), leadership (n = 42, 49%), and policy communication (n = 41, 48%). Overall, measures were low-cost and had easy readability. However, lengthy tools and lack of reported validity/reliability data indicate low transferability. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science can contribute to more complete and rigorous assessment of school health policy implementation processes, which can improve implementation strategies and ultimately the intended health benefits. Several high-quality measures of implementation determinants and implementation outcomes can be applied to school health policy implementation assessment. Dissemination and implementation science researchers can also benefit from measurement experiences of school health researchers.

Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Social Risk Screening Tools: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Health systems increasingly are exploring implementation of standardized social risk assessments. Implementation requires screening tools both with evidence of validity and reliability (psychometric properties) and that are low cost, easy to administer, readable, and brief (pragmatic properties). These properties for social risk assessment tools are not well understood and could help guide selection of assessment tools and future research. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was conducted during 2018 and included literature from PubMed and CINAHL published between 2000 and May 18, 2018. Included studies were based in the U.S., included tools that addressed at least 2 social risk factors (economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, neighborhood and physical environment, or food), and were administered in a clinical setting. Manual literature searching was used to identify empirical uses of included screening tools. Data on psychometric and pragmatic properties of each tool were abstracted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Review of 6,838 unique citations yielded 21 unique screening tools and 60 articles demonstrating empirical uses of the included screening tools. Data on psychometric properties were sparse, and few tools reported use of gold standard measurement development methods. Review of pragmatic properties indicated that tools were generally low cost, written for low-literacy populations, and easy to administer. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple low-cost, low literacy tools are available for social risk screening in clinical settings, but psychometric data are very limited. More research is needed on clinic-based screening tool reliability and validity as these factors should influence both adoption and utility. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study.

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.