Practices and experiences of European frontline nurses under the shadow of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused health professionals to deal with new situations they have not encountered before. Nurses were forced to cope with increased workloads, seriously ill patients, numerous patient deaths, and unresolved ethical dilemmas. This study aimed to examine the lived experiences of nurses across Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was a qualitative narrative research study. Eighteen nurses from eight European countries (four each from the UK and Israel, three from Portugal, two each from the Netherlands and Ireland, and one each from Belgium, Italy, and Sweden) submitted narratives about their professional experiences during May-June 2020. The narratives were analyzed using thematic analysis. Seven categories across the narratives were condensed and interpreted into three themes: opportunities and growth, care management, and emotional and ethical challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected nurses emotionally and provided an opportunity to actively develop systems and skills needed to minimize harm and maximize benefits to patients and nurses.

Searching beyond the Lamppost to Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities.

Racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer occur by race/ethnicity in both incidence and mortality rates. Women of lower socioeconomic status likewise have poorer outcomes. When race alone is considered, incidence rates in the United States are highest among White women (130.8 per 100,000), with Black women close behind (126.7 per 100,000). Incidence is lowest among Asian/Pacific Islander women, at 93.2 per 100,000. Mortality differences are more pronounced, with Black women 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women (28.4 per 100,000 and 20.3 per 100,000, respectively). Mortality rates for Asian/Pacific Islander women (11.5 per 100,000) are far lower than for Black and White women. When age is considered, additional differences between Black and White women appear, in part accounted for by types of breast cancer experienced. Women of other racial/ethnic groups and socioeconomic status have received less scientific attention. In this article, we provide a brief overview of the evidence for social determinants of breast cancer and argue that the current reliance on race over racism and ethnicity contributes to our inability to eliminate breast cancer disparities in the United States and elsewhere in the world. We suggest alternatives to the current approach to research in breast cancer disparities.

Learning from and Leveraging Multi-Level Changes in Responses to the COVID 19 Pandemic to Facilitate Breast Cancer Prevention Efforts.

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has had multilevel effects on non-COVID-19 health and health care, including deferral of routine cancer prevention and screening and delays in surgical and other procedures. Health and health care use has also been affected by pandemic-related loss of employer-based health insurance, food and housing disruptions, and heightened stress, sleep disruptions and social isolation. These disruptions are projected to contribute to excess non-COVID-19 deaths over the coming decades. At the same time municipalities, health systems and individuals are making changes in response to the pandemic, including modifications in the environmental to promote health, implementation of telehealth platforms, and shifts towards greater self-care and using remote platforms to maintain social connections. We used a multi-level biopsychosocial model to examine the available literature on the relationship between COVID-19-related changes and breast cancer prevention to identify current gaps in knowledge and identify potential opportunities for future research. We found that COVID-19 has impacted several aspects of social and economic life, through a variety of mechanisms, including unemployment, changes in health care delivery, changes in eating and activity, and changes in mental health. Some of these changes should be reduced, while others should be explored and enhanced.

The Global Challenge to Prevent Breast Cancer: Surfacing New Ideas to Accelerate Prevention Research.

Despite increases in screening and advances in treatment, breast cancer continues to be the most common cancer and cause of cancer deaths among women worldwide, and breast cancer rates have remained steady for decades. A new focus on population-level primary prevention is needed to tackle this disease at the most fundamental level. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of breast cancer research funds currently go to prevention. The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) seeks to change this. In order to accelerate breast cancer primary prevention efforts, in 2018, CBCRP launched the Global Challenge to Prevent Breast Cancer, a prize competition to foster and disseminate new and innovative prevention research ideas. This Special Issue highlights the results of the Global Challenge and other CBCRP primary prevention efforts.

An Expanded Agenda for the Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer: Charting a Course for the Future.

Advances in breast cancer science, early detection, and treatment have resulted in improvements in breast cancer survival but not in breast cancer incidence. After skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis in the United States. Each year, nearly a quarter million U.S. women receive a breast cancer diagnosis, and the number continues to rise each year with the growth in the population of older women. Although much remains to be understood about breast cancer origins and prevention, action can be taken on the existing scientific knowledge to address the systemic factors that drive breast cancer risk at the population level. The California Breast Cancer Research Program funded a team at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) to convene leaders in advocacy, policy, and research related to breast cancer prevention from across the state of California. The objective was the development of a strategic plan to direct collective efforts toward specific and measurable objectives to reduce the incidence of breast cancer. The structured, innovative approach used by BCPP to integrate scientific evidence with community perspectives provides a model for other states to consider, to potentially change the future trajectory of breast cancer incidence in the United States.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)-Phase 2.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC) is part of California Breast Cancer Research Program's (CBCRP) Initiative strategic priority to disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based primary prevention interventions. CLASP-BC is informed by six years of funded program dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and evaluation conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) through its Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP). In its second phase, CLASP-BC will fund multi-sector, multi-jurisdictional initiatives that integrate the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from practice and policy to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer and develop viable and sustainable infrastructure models for primary prevention breast cancer programs and research evidence implementation. Applications will be solicited from research, practice, policy, and community teams to address one or more of the intervention goals for the 23 risk factors identified in Paths to Prevention: The California Breast Cancer Primary Prevention Plan (P2P), expanding upon existing primary prevention efforts into two or more California jurisdictions, focused on disadvantaged, high risk communities with unmet social needs. The lessons learned from CLASP-BC will be widely disseminated within the participating jurisdictions, across California and, where applicable, to jurisdictions outside the state.

Doing What We Know, Knowing What to Do: Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC).

Given the lack of progress in breast cancer prevention, the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) plans to apply current scientific knowledge about breast cancer to primary prevention at the population level. This paper describes the first phase of Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC). The foci of Phase 1 are building coalitions and coalition capacity building through community engagement in community-based participatory research (CBPR) and dissemination and implementation (D&I) research training. Based on the successful implementation and evaluation of Phase 1, the foci of Phase 2 (presented separately in this special issue) will be to translate the California Breast Cancer Prevention Plan overarching goal and specific intervention goals for 23 breast cancer risk and protective factors strategies into evidence-informed interventions (EIIs) that are disseminated and implemented across California. CLASP-BC is designed to identify, disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based prevention approaches by funding large scale EIIs, through multi-jurisdictional actions, with the intent to decrease the risk of breast cancer and other chronic diseases (sharing common risk factors), particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and medically underserved populations in California.

Inflammatory Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of the Evidence and Future Potential for Intervention Research.

Measuring systemic chronic inflammatory markers in the blood may be one way of understanding the role of inflammation in breast cancer risk, and might provide an intermediate outcome marker in prevention studies. Here, we present the results of a systematic review of prospective epidemiologic studies that examined associations between systemic inflammatory biomarkers measured in blood and breast cancer risk. From 1 January 2014 to 20 April 2020, we identified 18 unique studies (from 16 publications) that examined the association of systemic inflammatory biomarkers measured in blood with breast cancer risk using prospectively collected epidemiologic data. Only one marker, C-reactive protein, was studied extensively (measured in 13 of the 16 publications), and had some evidence of a positive association with breast cancer risk. Evidence associating other inflammatory biomarkers and more comprehensive panels of markers with the development of breast cancer is limited. Future prospective evidence from expanded panels of systemic blood inflammatory biomarkers is needed to establish strong and independent links with breast cancer risk, along with mechanistic studies to understand inflammatory pathways and demonstrate how breast tissue responds to chronic inflammation. This knowledge could ultimately support the development and evaluation of mechanistically driven interventions to reduce inflammation and prevent breast cancer.

Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer.

This paper describes the development and feasibility of the Community Based Research Infrastructure to Better Science (CRIBS) training. The goal of this training program was to help new or existing community-academic teams to build strong partnerships and successfully develop together fundable research projects focused on breast cancer environmental causes and disparities. A comprehensive mixed-methods participatory approach was utilized to assess the training. Twenty-two community-academic teams applied for the training program; twelve teams were enrolled. All teams completed the training and subsequently submitted research applications for funding. All components of the training received high ratings and positive qualitative comments. Self-rated competency in all of the learning domains increased during the training. Four (33%) of teams were successful in their first attempt to garner research funding, and six (50%) were eventually successful. The evaluation of CRIBS found it to have successfully achieved all four goals of the training: (1) Twelve new CBPR (community-based participatory research) teams, (2) improved knowledge about CBPR and science, (3) twelve submitted grant proposals in the first year, and (4) six (50%) successfully funded research projects.

Building a clinical leadership community to drive improvement: a multi-case educational study to inform 21st century clinical commissioning, professional capability and patient care.

The new NHS requires transformational leadership; people with the knowledge and motivation to make effective change combined with an understanding of the system they work in. The aim of the Practice Leaders' Programme (PLP) is to generate the conditions needed to focus the energy and collaborative creativity required for innovation to enhance leadership skills across the health economy improving patient care. The PLP engaged 60 local leaders from central England in a new approach enabling them to influence others. It has informed educational policy and practice and helped change professional behaviours. Each participant implemented improvements in care and participated in six action learning sets (ALS) and up to six coaching sessions. Evidence of progress, learning and impact was identified in project reports, reflective diaries and evaluations. The ALS brought together key individuals from clinical and management disciplines across a diverse organisation to redesign a system by developing a shared vision for improving the quality of patient care. The links forged, the projects initiated, and the skills cultivated through the PLP produced ongoing benefits and outcomes beyond the course itself. Coaching sessions helped participants focus their efforts to achieve maximum impact and to become resilient in managing service change effectively. The programme has evolved over four years, building on recommendations from external evaluation which identified statistically significant increases in leadership competences. Further enhancement of this programme secured an International Health Improvement Award. Three key findings of positive impact have emerged; personal growth, service improvement, and legacy and sustainability.

Practice leaders programme: entrusting and enabling general practitioners to lead change to improve patient experience.

This program focused on practice-level service change as a means of improving patient care and developing leadership skills of 19 general practitioners (GPs) and aimed to: promote and support change in leadership thinking and practice, facilitate practice-led service improvement, support career development, support continuing professional development, and contribute to the development of extended GP specialty training. Nineteen GPs, in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, both new and experienced, volunteered to participate. Milton Keynes was selected on the basis of it being an area of relative social deprivation and underperformance in national quality indicators. New and experienced GPs took part in biweekly Action Learning Sets, individual coaching, and placements with the national and local health organizations. Each participant completed a project to improve the quality of patient care. The learning sets supported the process and 11 of the GPs chose to complete a postgraduate certificate in General Practice. Evaluation consisted of analysis of development of leadership competencies recorded through Medical Leadership Competency Framework pre- and postintervention assessment, analysis of learning recorded in participants' reflective diaries, analysis of learning process recorded through participant focus groups, and analysis of learning and project outcomes recorded in project reports. Outcomes showed statistically significant increases in leadership competencies, changes in services and care, improved confidence and changed culture. GPs expressed increased confidence to "have a go" and motivation to "make a difference." This innovative narrative, complex, neuroleadership-based program continues to inform educational policy and practice, increasing leadership competencies, and to improve the quality of patient care.

Disaster planning: using an 'evolving scenario' approach for pandemic influenza with primary care doctors in training.

This project adopted an 'evolving scenario' approach of an influenza pandemic to enhance factual and attitudinal learning in general practice registrars. The one-day session, held before the current outbreak, was based around a sequence of four video clips that portrayed the development and evolution of pandemic influenza through news flashes and pieces to camera. A short factual presentation was included. Small group discussions with plenary feedback followed each of these. Registrars were encouraged to consider their own feelings, what they needed as professional support at each stage, and what professional and personal issues a pandemic produced. A course structured in this way allowed participants at a training level to identify the major issues and consequences of an influenza pandemic. It was recognised that constructive preparation and planning for business continuity were possible. However, family illness and social consequences were recognised as causing a dissonance with professional practice that needs open debate.

Funding community-based participatory research: lessons learned.

The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) was created to fund innovative breast cancer research specifically addressing the needs of women in California. Beginning in 1997, the Program launched the Community Research Collaboration (CRC) Program, a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) program intended to foster community-researcher collaboration on all aspects of the research process, essentially placing the community in the center of the research paradigm. The CBCRP conducted a process evaluation of the CRC Program to assess success and identify areas for improvement. The evaluation included community-researcher collaborations and the award process. The evaluation identified successes that speak to the effectiveness of the collaboration concept: empowering women to formulate and initiate research; involving underserved and hard-to-reach populations; addressing important and useful research questions; increasing communities' skills and expertise, and enabling lasting collaborations. The greatest weakness identified was the involvement of the broader community (beyond the group/organization involved) in these projects. The evaluation identified strengths in CBCRP's award process, including technical assistance and feedback, the emphasis on collaboration in the review process, and awarding funds directly to community groups. Barriers included: power imbalances due to the community's lack of experience in the dominant research funding culture; funding limits and award delays; and the increased service demand beyond the funding limits of the award that is created. The CBCRP has been able to incorporate many of the evaluation findings to improve the CRC Program.