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.

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.

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.

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.