Use of Community Engagement Studios to Adapt a Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Study of Social Incentives and Physical Activity for the STEP Together Study.

Physical activity is known to contribute to good health, but most adults in the United States do not meet recommended physical activity guidelines. Social incentive interventions that leverage insights from behavioral economics have increased physical activity in short-term trials, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness in community settings or their long-term effectiveness. The STEP Together study is a Hybrid Type 1 effectiveness-implementation study to address these evidence and implementation gaps. This paper describes the process of adapting study procedures prior to the effectiveness trial using Community Engagement (CE) Studios, facilitated meetings during which community members provide feedback on research projects. Six CE Studios were held with community members from the priority population. They were conducted remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen liaisons representing 13 community organizations and 21 community members from different neighborhoods in Philadelphia participated. Three elements of the study design were modified based on feedback from the CE Studios: lowering the age requirement for an 'older adult', clarifying the definition of family members to include second-degree relatives, and adding a 6-month survey. These adaptations will improve the fit of the effectiveness trial to the local context and improve participant engagement and retention. CE Studios can be used to adapt intervention strategies and other aspects of study design during hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials. This approach was successfully used with remote online participation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and serves as a model for future community-engaged implementation research.

Stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding prostate cancer among Black and Latino men and women.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities in prostate cancer (PC) are thought to reflect the complex interplay of socioeconomics, environment and biology. The potential impact of beliefs and perceptions about PC among Black and Latino populations on clinical disparities are not well understood. This qualitative study was conducted to assess current prevalent and pervasive stigma, beliefs and perceptions regarding PC among Blacks and Latinos living in a large metropolitan area, thereby identifying potentially modifiable barriers to care. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through four separate focus groups of self-identified Black and Latino adult men and women living in Philadelphia to better understand their perceptions of PC diagnosis, screening and treatment. Each focus group was single-sex and conducted by racial/ethnic group in order to assess possible differences in beliefs about PC based on gender and racial/ethnic affiliation. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by trained research assistants and qualitative data analysis was conducted using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: There were a total of 34 participants: 19 Hispanics/Latinos and 15 Blacks, with equal numbers of men and women (n=17). Median age was 57 years (range: 18 to 85 years). Dominant themes that emerged with respect to PC diagnosis included the stigma surrounding this condition and the perceived role of an "unhealthy lifestyle" and certain sexual behaviors as risk factors for PC development. While the majority of participants acknowledged the importance of PC screening and early detection, discussion centered around the barriers to both the interest in seeking medical care and the likelihood of securing it. These barriers included misunderstanding of PC etiology, distrust of the medical profession, and financial/access limitations. Men expressed substantial confusion about PC screening guidelines. In the Black female group, the role of faith and religion in the course of disease was a major theme. Both Black and Latina females discussed the role of fear and avoidance around PC screening and treatment, as well as the prevalence of misinformation about PC in their familial and social communities. CONCLUSION: Black and Latino focus groups revealed the existence of cultural beliefs, misunderstandings and fears pertaining to PC which could influence health-related behaviors. Some themes were common across groups; others suggested racial and gender predilections. Future targeted efforts focused on directly addressing prevalent misperceptions among underserved communities in urban settings could help to improve health literacy and equity in PC outcomes in these populations.

Putting Evidence Academies into action: Prostate cancer, nutrition, and tobacco control science.

A well-documented challenge in moving public health research into practice is the extended time it takes to implement findings in clinical practice and communities. The Evidence Academy model (Rohweder et al., 2016), developed and first used in North Carolina, is a pragmatic, action-oriented model that aims to shorten this timeline by communicating cutting-edge findings directly to those who can use them and convening individuals working in a single topic area to network and plan activities for the future. The University of Pennsylvania Collaborating Center of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) held three conferences based on the Evidence Academy model: one about prostate cancer in 2015, a second on food access and obesity prevention in 2017, and a third about tobacco control science in 2018. A diverse planning committee of stakeholders helped shape the content, focus,and format of each conference. Local and national experts presented findings to regional audiences of researchers, practitioners, government leaders, and community members. Each Evidence Academy included collaborators and speakers from other Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) and CPCRN network sites. Evaluations and outcomes indicated that the events were successful in achieving their goals and fostered ongoing relationships among attendees. This paper illustrates how the Evidence Academy model was used in a different region and describes lessons learned and follow-up activities that were initiated via the Evidence Academy and with input from participants. Lessons learned may be helpful in developing and evaluating future adaptations of the Evidence Academy model and/or the effectiveness of its components.

Development of a Survey of Sunscreen Use and Attitudes among Adults in Two Coastal States, 2019.

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, and regular use of broad-spectrum sunscreens can prevent skin cancer. However, a new law in Hawaii that limits sunscreen choices due to the belief that some UV (ultraviolet) filters may damage coral reefs may reduce sunscreen use and increase skin-cancer risk. Because of this, there is a need for measurement tools to help understand consumer behavior and determinants of sunscreen purchase and use. The objectives of this study were (1) to test new questionnaire measures relevant to the Hawaii Sunscreen Ban; and (2) to assess adults' knowledge, attitudes, and habits related to sunscreen in two other coastal states. This survey of adult residents of California and Florida was conducted in the summer of 2019. Newly developed scales addressed beliefs about effects of sunscreens on aquatic/marine environments and awareness of the Hawaii sunscreen ban. Respondents completed the survey twice to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Respondents (n = 162) were mainly female, White, and college-educated. New scales had moderate-to-high internal consistency and high test-retest reliability. Sunscreen use was high, sunburn was common, and knowledge and attitudes about sunscreen were modest. Most respondents did not know the specifics of the Hawaii Sunscreen Ban. In multivariate models, significant predictors of sunscreen use were being older, female, and having higher sunscreen knowledge. Sunscreen beliefs were not significantly associated with sunscreen use or sunburn. The findings support the use of the newly developed survey and suggest that more education about sunscreen and sunscreen ingredients is needed.

Understanding the processes that Federally Qualified Health Centers use to select and implement colorectal cancer screening interventions: a qualitative study.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective at reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. Evidence-based interventions can increase screening rates, particularly when they target multiple levels (e.g., patients, providers, health care systems). However, effective interventions remain underutilized. Thus, there is a pressing need to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions. We report on formative research aimed at understanding how Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) staff select and implement CRC screening interventions, which will inform development of capacity-building strategies. We report the qualitative findings from a study that used a mixed methods design, starting with a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 staff from 14 FQHCs in 8 states. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview questions and data analysis. Related to the CFIR process domain, few respondents described conducting formal assessments of factors contributing to low screening rates prior to planning their interventions. Many described engaging champions, implementation leaders, and external change agents. Few described a systematic approach to executing implementation plans beyond conducting plan-do-study-act cycles. Reflection and evaluation consisted primarily of reviewing Uniform Data System performance measures. Findings also include themes related to factors influencing these implementation processes. Although FQHCs are implementing CRC screening interventions, they are not actively targeting the multilevel factors influencing their CRC screening rates. Our findings on gaps in FQHCs' implementation processes will inform development of strategies to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions.