Why location matters: Associations between county-level characteristics and availability of NCORP and NCI sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. While the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular & contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation (SD) increase in the racial and ethnic theme score there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI 1.10-1.36); for a SD increase in the socioeconomic status theme score there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI 0.67-0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSION(S): NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties, and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

Benefits, challenges, and strategies related to using presumptive recommendations for HPV vaccination: A qualitative study with rural and non-rural-serving primary care professionals.

HPV vaccination coverage remains far below the national target of 80% among US adolescents, particularly in rural areas, which have vaccine uptake rates that are 10% points lower than non-rural areas on average. Primary care professionals (PCPs) can increase coverage by using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination in a way that assumes parents want to vaccinate. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored PCPs' experiences and perceptions of using presumptive recommendations in rural- and non-rural-serving primary care clinics in North Carolina. Thematic analysis revealed that most PCPs in rural and non-rural contexts used presumptive recommendations and felt the strategy was an effective and concise way to introduce the topic of HPV vaccination to parents. At the same time, some PCPs raised concerns about presumptive recommendations potentially straining relationships with certain parents, including those who had previously declined HPV vaccine or who distrust medical authority due to their past experiences with the healthcare system. PCPs dealt with these challenges by using a more open-ended approach when introducing HPV vaccination to parents. In conclusion, our findings suggest that PCPs in both rural and non-rural settings see value in using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination, but to adequately address concerns and ensure increased HPV vaccine uptake, PCPs can use simple and culturally sensitive language to ensure fully informed consent and to maintain parental trust. And to further strengthen HPV vaccine discussions, PCPs can utilize other effective HPV communication techniques, like the Announcement Approach, in discussing HPV vaccinations with hesitant parents.

Characterizing Cancer Burden in the American Indian Population in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: The American Indian (AI) population in North Carolina has limited access to the Indian Health Service. Consequently, cancer burden and disparities may differ from national estimates. We describe the AI cancer population and examine AI-White disparities in cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: We identified cancer cases diagnosed among adult AI and White populations between 2014-2018 from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. We estimated incidence and mortality rate ratios (IRR; MRR) by race. Additionally, between the AI and White populations, we estimated relative frequency differences (RRFs, with 95% confidence limits [CL]) of clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. Lastly, we evaluated the geographic distribution of incident diagnoses among AI populations. RESULTS: Our analytic sample included 2,161 AI and 204,613 White individuals with cancer. Compared to the White population, the AI population was more likely to live in rural areas (48% vs 25%; RRF:1.89;CL:1.81,1.97) and to have Medicaid (18% vs 7%; RRF:2.49;CL:2.27,2.71). Among the AI population, the highest age-standardized incidence rates were female breast, followed by prostate and lung and bronchus. Liver cancer incidence was significantly higher among the AI population than White population (IRR:1.27;CL:1.01,1.59). AI patients had higher mortality rates for prostate (MRR:1.72;CL:1.09,2.70), stomach (MRR:1.82;CL:1.15,2.86), and liver (MRR:1.70;CL:1.25,2.33) cancers compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce prostate, stomach, and liver cancer disparities among AI populations in North Carolina, multi-modal interventions targeting risk factors and increasing screening and treatment are needed. IMPACT: This study identifies cancer disparities that can inform targeted interventions to improve outcomes among AI populations in North Carolina.

Statewide Survey of Primary Care and Subspecialty Providers on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk-Stratification and Surveillance Practices.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival. Provision of HCC surveillance is low in the US, particularly in primary care settings. AIMS: To evaluate current hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HCC surveillance practices and physician attitudes regarding HCC risk-stratification among primary care and subspecialty providers. METHODS: Using the Tailored Design Method, we delivered a 34-item online survey to 7654 North Carolina-licensed internal/family medicine or gastroenterology/hepatology physicians and advanced practice providers in 2022. We included the domains of HCV treatment, cirrhosis diagnosis, HCC surveillance practices, barriers to surveillance, and interest in risk-stratification tools. We performed descriptive analyses to summarize responses. Tabulations were weighted based on sampling weights accounting for non-response and inter-specialty comparisons were made using chi-squared or t test statistics. RESULTS: After exclusions, 266 responses were included in the final sample (response rate 3.8%). Most respondents (78%) diagnosed cirrhosis using imaging and a minority used non-invasive tests that were blood-based (~ 15%) or transient elastography (31%). Compared to primary care providers, subspecialists were more likely to perform HCC surveillance every 6-months (vs annual) (98% vs 35%, p < 0.0001). Most respondents (80%) believed there were strong data to support HCC surveillance, but primary care providers did not know which liver disease patients needed surveillance. Most providers (> 70%) expressed interest in potential solutions to improve HCC risk-stratification. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey, there were great knowledge gaps in HCC surveillance among PCPs and most respondents expressed interest in strategies to increase appropriate HCC surveillance.

Barriers to Cervical Cancer Screening by Sexual Orientation Among Low-Income Women in North Carolina.

We sought to examine cervical cancer screening barriers by sexual orientation among low-income women in North Carolina. The MyBodyMyTest-3 Trial recruited low-income women (< 250% of federal poverty level) aged 25-64 years who were 1+ year overdue for cervical cancer screening. We compared perceptions of cervical cancer screening among those who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ; n = 70) to straight/heterosexual women (n = 683). For both LGBQ and straight respondents, the greatest barriers to screening were lack of health insurance (63% and 66%) and cost (49% and 50%). LGBQ respondents were more likely than straight respondents to report forgetting to screen (16% vs. 8%, p = .05), transportation barriers (10% vs. 2%, p = .001), and competing mental or physical health problems (39% vs. 27%, p = .10). Addressing access remains important for improving cervical cancer screening among those under-screened. For LGBQ women, additional attention may be needed for reminders, co-occurring health needs, and transportation barriers.

Area Vulnerability and Disparities in Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Area-level measures of sociodemographic disadvantage may be associated with racial and ethnic disparities with respect to receipt of treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) but have not been investigated previously, to our knowledge. Objective: To assess the association between area-level measures of social vulnerability and racial and ethnic disparities in the treatment of US Medicare beneficiaries with mRCC from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were diagnosed with mRCC from January 2015 through December 2019 and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 1 year before through 1 year after presumed diagnosis or until death. Data were analyzed from November 22, 2022, through January 26, 2024. Exposures: Five different county-level measures of disadvantage and 4 zip code-level measures of vulnerability or deprivation and segregation were used to dichotomize whether an individual resided in the most vulnerable quartile according to each metric. Patient-level factors included age, race and ethnicity, sex, diagnosis year, comorbidities, frailty, Medicare and Medicaid dual enrollment eligibility, and Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt and type of systemic therapy (oral anticancer agent or immunotherapy from 2 months before to 1 year after diagnosis of mRCC) as a function of patient and area-level characteristics. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for patient factors, and odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression and relative risk ratios (RRRs) from multinomial logistic regression are reported. Results: The sample included 15 407 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.8] years), of whom 9360 (60.8%) were men; 6931 (45.0%), older than 75 years; 93 (0.6%), American Indian or Alaska Native; 257 (1.7%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 757 (4.9%), Hispanic; 1017 (6.6%), non-Hispanic Black; 12 966 (84.2%), non-Hispanic White; 121 (0.8%), other; and 196 (1.3%), unknown. Overall, 8317 patients (54.0%) received some type of systemic therapy. After adjusting for individual factors, no county or zip code-level measures of social vulnerability, deprivation, or segregation were associated with disparities in treatment. In contrast, patient-level factors, including female sex (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84) and LIS (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), were associated with lack of treatment, with particularly limited access to immunotherapy for patients with LIS (RRR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14-0.43). Associations between individual-level factors and treatment in multivariable analysis were not mediated by the addition of area-level metrics. Disparities by race and ethnicity were consistently and only observed within the most vulnerable areas, as indicated by the top quartile of each vulnerability deprivation index. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older Medicare patients diagnosed with mRCC, individual-level demographics, including race and ethnicity, sex, and income, were associated with receipt of systemic therapy, whereas area-level measures were not. However, individual-level racial and ethnic disparities were largely limited to socially vulnerable areas, suggesting that efforts to improve racial and ethnic disparities may be most effective when targeted to socially vulnerable areas.

Inclusion of marginalized populations in HPV vaccine modeling: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Models simulating the potential impacts of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine have been used globally to guide vaccination policies and programs. We sought to understand how and why marginalized populations have been incorporated into HPV vaccine simulation models. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase to identify studies using simulation models of HPV vaccination incorporating one or more marginalized population through stratification or subgroup analysis. We extracted data on study characteristics and described these overall and by included marginalized groups. RESULTS: We identified 36 studies that met inclusion criteria, which modeled vaccination in 21 countries. Models included men who have sex with men (MSM; k = 16), stratification by HIV status (k = 9), race/ethnicity (k = 6), poverty (k = 5), rurality (k = 4), and female sex workers (k = 1). When evaluating for a marginalized group (k = 10), HPV vaccination was generally found to be cost-effective, including for MSM, individuals living with HIV, and rural populations. In studies evaluating equity in cancer prevention (k = 9), HPV vaccination generally advanced equity, but this was sensitive to differences in HPV vaccine uptake and use of absolute or relative measures of inequities. Only one study assessed the impact of an intervention promoting HPV vaccine uptake. DISCUSSION: Incorporating marginalized populations into decision models can provide valuable insights to guide decision making and improve equity in cancer prevention. More research is needed to understand the equity impact of HPV vaccination on cancer outcomes among marginalized groups. Research should emphasize implementation - including identifying and evaluating specific interventions to increase HPV vaccine uptake.

Financial burden among metastatic breast cancer patients: a qualitative inquiry of costs, financial assistance, health insurance, and financial coping behaviors.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients often face substantial financial burden due to prolonged and expensive therapy. However, in-depth experiences of financial burden among MBC patients are not well understood. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted to describe the experiences of financial burden for MBC patients, focusing on the drivers of financial burden, their experience using their health insurance, accessing financial assistance, and any resulting cost-coping behaviors. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a descriptive phenomenological approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of n = 11 MBC patients or caregiver representatives participated in the study. MBC patients were on average 50.2 years of age (range: 28-65) and 72.7% non-Hispanic White. MBC patients were diagnosed as metastatic an average of 3.1 years (range: 1-9) before participating in the study. Qualitative analysis resulted in four themes including (1) causes of financial burden, (2) financial assistance mechanisms, (3) health insurance and financial burden, and (4) cost-coping behaviors. Both medical and non-medical costs drove financial burden among participants. All participants reported challenges navigating their health insurance and applying for financial assistance. Regardless of gaining access to assistance, financial burden persisted for nearly all patients and resulted in cost-coping behaviors. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that current systems for health insurance and financial assistance are complex and difficult to meet patient needs. Even when MBC patients accessed assistance, excess financial burden persisted necessitating use of financial coping-behaviors such as altering medication use, maintaining employment, and taking on debt.

Systematic Review of Interventions Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Care and Health Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Cancer health disparities result from complex interactions among socioeconomic, behavioral, and biological factors, disproportionately affecting marginalized racial and ethnic groups. The objective of this review is to synthesize existing evidence on interventions addressing racial or ethnic disparities in cancer-related health care access and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive search of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection was conducted from database inception to February 23, 2023. Controlled vocabulary and keywords helped to identify studies on cancer-related disparities and interventions in adults age 18 years or older. Two reviewers followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Of 7,526 screened studies, 34 met the inclusion criteria involving 24,134 participants. Most studies focused on breast cancer (n = 17) and Hispanic/Latino populations (n = 10) and enrolled participants primarily from community-based sites (n = 19). Twenty-one studies examined patient-centered outcomes, such as health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, while 15 studies assessed process-of-care outcomes, such as timeliness of care. Most studies followed a community-based participatory research framework. Five patient-centered outcome studies reported a positive intervention effect, often combining cancer education with psychological well-being interventions. Among the 15 process-of-care outcome studies, nine reported positive effects, with the majority (n = 8) being navigation-based interventions. CONCLUSION: This systematic review emphasizes the vital role of community partnerships in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in oncology care and highlights the need for standardized approaches in intervention research because of the heterogeneity of studied interventions. Furthermore, the prevailing emphasis on breast cancer and Hispanic populations indicates the need for future investigations into other priority demographic groups.

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors. CONCLUSION: This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Simulating the population impact of interventions to reduce racial gaps in breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Inequities in guideline-concordant treatment receipt contribute to worse survival in Black breast cancer (BCa) patients. Inequity-reduction interventions (eg, navigation, bias training, tracking dashboards) can close such treatment gaps. We simulated the population-level impact of statewide implementation of inequity-reduction interventions on racial BCa inequities in North Carolina. METHODS: Using registry-linked multi-payer claims data, we calculated Black/White inequities in endocrine (ET; n = 12,033) and chemotherapy (CTx; n = 1,819) receipt. We then built cohort- (ET and CTx), and race-stratified Markov models to simulate the potential increase in the proportion of patients receiving ET or CTx and subsequent improvements in BCa outcomes if inequity-reducing intervention were implemented statewide. We report uncertainty bounds representing 95% of simulation results. RESULTS: 75.6% and 72.1% of Black patients received ET and CTx over the 2006-2015 and 2004-2015 periods (vs 79.3 and 78.9% of White patients, respectively). Inequity-reduction interventions could increase ET and CTx receipt among Black patients to 89.9% (85.3, 94.6%) and 85.7% (80.7, 90.9%). Such interventions could also decrease 5-and 10-year BCa mortality gaps from 3.4 to 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) and from 6.7 to 6.1 (5.9, 6.4) percentage points in the ET cohorts and from 8.6 to 8.1 (7.7, 8.4) and from 8.2 to 7.8 (7.3, 8.1) percentage points in the CTx cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Inequity-focused interventions could improve cancer outcomes for Black patients. However, they would not fully close the racial BCa mortality gap. Addressing other inequities along cancer continuum (eg, screening, pre-and post-diagnosis risk factors) is required to achieve full equity in BCa outcomes.

Disparities in OncotypeDx Testing and Subsequent Chemotherapy Receipt by Geography and Socioeconomic Status.

BACKGROUND: OncotypeDx is a prognostic and predictive genomic assay used in early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2- (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. It is used to inform adjuvant chemotherapy decisions, but not all eligible women receive testing. We aimed to assess variation in testing by demographics and geography, and to determine whether testing was associated with chemotherapy. METHODS: For 1,615 women in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study with HR+/HER2-, Stage I-II tumors, we estimated prevalence differences (PD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for receipt of OncotypeDx genomic testing in association with and sociodemographic characteristics. We assessed associations between testing and chemotherapy receipt overall and by race. Finally, we calculated the proportion of eligible women receiving OncotypeDx by county-level rurality, census tract-level socioeconomic status, and Area Health Education Center regions. RESULTS: 38% (N = 609) of potentially eligible women were tested, with lower testing prevalences in Black (31%; PD, -11%; 95% CI, -16%-6%) and low-income women (24%; PD, -20%; 95% CI, -29% to -11%) relative to non-Black and higher income women. Urban participants were less likely to be tested than rural participants, though this association varied by region. Among women with low genomic risk tumors, tested participants were 29% less likely to receive chemotherapy than untested participants (95% CI, -40% to -17%). Racial differences in chemotherapy were restricted to untested women. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual and area-level socioeconomics predict likelihood of OncotypeDx testing. IMPACT: Variable adoption of OncotypeDx by socioeconomics and across geographic settings may contribute to excess chemotherapy among patients with HR+/HER2- cancers. See related In the Spotlight, p. 635.

Characteristics, healthcare utilization, and outcomes of patients with HER2-low breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment for HER2-low [defined as ImmunoHistoChemistry (IHC) 1 + or 2 + and negative/normal in Situ Hybridization (ISH)] breast cancer patients is rapidly evolving, yet we lack critical information about the HER2-low population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 years or older diagnosed with breast cancer between 2010 and 2016 in North Carolina. Analyses were conducted for the overall cohort and a stage IV sub-cohort. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics, and characterized prevalence of HER2-low disease and healthcare utilization. We estimated adjusted rate ratios for the association between HER2 classifications and utilization outcomes, and hazard ratios for 3-year all cause mortality (stage IV only). RESULTS: The overall and stage IV cohorts included 12,965 and 635 patients, respectively. HER2-low patients represented more than half of both cohorts (59% overall, 53% stage IV). HER2-low patients were more likely than IHC 0 patients to have hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease. In the stage IV cohort, HER2-low patients were more likely to be Black (26% vs. 16% IHC 0, p = 0.0159). In both cohorts, rates of hospitalizations were slightly higher among HER2-low patients. There were no survival differences between HER2-low and IHC 0 among stage IV patients. CONCLUSION: New treatment options for HER2-low breast cancer may have potential for significant impact at the population level particularly for patients with stage IV disease. In light of racial differences between HER2-low and IHC 0 patients observed in our cohort, research- and practice-based efforts to ensure equitable adoption of new treatment guidelines for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer will be essential.

Economic Evaluation of a Nonmedical Financial Assistance Program on Missed Treatment Appointments Among Adults With Cancer.

PURPOSE: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and economic impact of a program providing nonmedical financial assistance on missed treatment appointments among patients receiving cancer treatment at a large, Southeastern public hospital system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used patient electronic health records, program records, and cancer registry data to examine the impact of the program on rates of missed (or no-show) radiation therapy and infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy appointments in the 180 days after treatment initiation. We used propensity weighting to estimate the effect of the program, stratified by treatment appointment type (radiation therapy, infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy). We developed a decision tree-based economic model to conduct a cost-consequence analysis from the health system perspective in a hypothetical cohort over a 6-month time horizon. RESULTS: Of 1,347 patients receiving radiation therapy between 2015 and 2019, 53% (n = 715) had ≥1 no-shows and 28% (n = 378) received program assistance. Receipt of any assistance was associated with a 2.1 percentage point (95% CI, 0.6 to 3.5) decrease in the proportion of no-shows, corresponding to a 51% decrease in the overall mean no-show proportion. Under the current funding model, the program is estimated to save the health system $153 in US dollars per missed appointment averted, relative to not providing nonmedical financial assistance. Of the 1,641 patients receiving infusion chemotherapy/immunotherapy, 33% (n = 541) received program assistance, and only 14% (n = 223) had ≥1 no-shows. The financial assistance program did not have a significant effect on no-show proportions among infusion visits. CONCLUSION: This study used a novel approach to retrospectively evaluate a nonmedical financial assistance program for patients undergoing active cancer treatment. Findings support investment in programs that address patients' nonmedical financial needs, particularly for those undergoing intensive radiation therapy.

Patient Willingness to Use a Pharmacy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Service: A National Survey of U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand U.S. adults' willingness to use a pharmacy-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) distribution service for routine colorectal cancer screening called PharmFIT using Diffusion of Innovation Theory, evaluating patient's appraisals of the program's relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. METHODS: From March to April 2021, we conducted a national online survey of 1,045 U.S. adults ages 45 to 75. We identified correlates of patient willingness to use PharmFIT using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Most respondents (72%) were willing to get a FIT from their pharmacy for their regular colorectal cancer screening. Respondents were more willing to participate in PharmFIT if they perceived higher relative advantage ($\hat{\beta}$= 0.184; confidence interval, CI95%: 0.055-0.325) and perceived higher compatibility ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.422; CI95%: 0.253-0.599) to get screened in a pharmacy, had longer travel times to their primary health care provider ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.007; CI95%: 0.004-0.010). Respondents were less willing to participate in PharmFIT if they were 65 years or older ($\hat{\beta}$ = -0.220; CI95%: -0.362 to -0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Most U.S. adults would be willing to participate in PharmFIT for their routine colorectal cancer screening. Patient perceptions of the relative advantage and compatibility of PharmFIT were strongly associated with their willingness to use PharmFIT. Pharmacies should account for patient preferences for these two traits of PharmFIT to increase adoption and use. IMPACT: Pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening may be a viable public health strategy to significantly increase equitable access to screening for U.S. residents.

Assessing the pre-implementation context for financial navigation in rural and non-rural oncology clinics.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations. Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality. Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources. Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.