Social and structural determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among racial and ethnic groups.

Latino, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander people have the highest hospitalizations and death rates from COVID-19. Social inequalities have exacerbated COVID-19 related health disparities. This study examines social and structural determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Results from logistic regressions suggest Latino and Black people were less likely to be vaccinated. People that did not have health insurance, a primary care doctor and were unemployed were more than 30% less likely to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Greater perceived health inequalities in one's neighborhood and perceived racial/ethnic discrimination were associated with a decreased odds in being vaccinated. People that suffered the loss of a household member from COVID-19 were three times more likely to have been vaccinated. Establishing policies that will increase access to health insurance and create jobs with living wages may have lasting impacts. Furthermore, collaboration with local and national community organizations can enhance the development of sustainable solutions.

"Let's Talk about Skin Cancer": Examining Association between Family Communication about Skin Cancer, Perceived Risk, and Sun Protection Behaviors.

Family communication about skin cancer risk may motivate protective behaviors. However, it is unclear how widespread such communication might be. In this study, we describe prevalence and patterns (across environmental, personal, and behavioral factors) of family communication about skin cancer across N = 600 diverse (79% female, 48% Hispanic, 44% non-Hispanic White) primary care patients from Albuquerque, New Mexico, a geographical location with year-round sun exposure. Over half reported discussing general cancer (77%) and skin cancer risks (66%) with their families. The most frequent target of skin cancer risk communication included doctors (54%), followed by friends/coworkers (49%), spouse/partner (43%), other family members (38%), sisters (36%), mothers (36%), daughters (33%), sons (32%), father (24%), and brothers (22%). On average, participants reported having talked to three family members about skin cancer risks. The most frequently discussed content of skin cancer risk communication was the use of sun protection (89%), followed by the personal risk of skin cancer (68%), who had skin cancer in the family (60%), family risk of skin cancer (59%), time of sun exposure (57%), and skin cancer screening (57%). A family or personal history of cancer, higher perceived risk, higher health literacy, being non-Hispanic, having higher education or income, and proactive sun protective behavior were associated with greater family communication about general cancer and skin cancer risks. These study findings have implications for interventions that encourage discussions about skin cancer risk, sun protection, and skin cancer screening that lead to adoption of sun-safe behaviors.

Effect of Superstitious Beliefs and Risk Intuitions on Genetic Test Decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Moving beyond numeric representations of risk perceptions, we examine cognitive causation, or superstitious thinking, and negative affect in risk as predictors of MC1R (i.e., moderate v. high risk) skin cancer genetic testing and responses to this testing. METHODS: Participants (N = 496) completed baseline assessments using validated measures of cognitive causation (beliefs that thinking about cancer risk increases cancer likelihood) and negative affect in risk (negative feelings generated during risk perception) and subsequently received a test offer. Participants could access a website to learn about and request genetic testing. Those who tested (n = 167) completed assessments of cognitive and affective reactions 2 wk after testing, including the Impact of Events-Revised Intrusive thoughts subscale. RESULTS: Those with higher negative affect in risk were less likely to return a saliva sample for testing (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval = 0.96-0.99). Those with higher cognitive causation reported more fear (b = 0.28-0.31; P's < 0.05). Higher negative affect in risk was associated with more emotion-laden test responses, particularly in those receiving higher-risk as compared with average-risk results. CONCLUSION: Negative affect in risk did not hamper test information seeking, although it did inhibit the uptake of genetic testing. Those with higher cognitive causation showed more fear regarding their test result, as indicated by higher distress in those who received average-risk results and lower believability in those who received higher-risk results.

Comprehension of skin cancer genetic risk feedback in primary care patients.

Few studies have examined comprehension and miscomprehension of genetic risk feedback for moderate-risk genes in the general population. We examined the prevalence and nature of accurate and inaccurate genetic risk feedback comprehension among those who received genetic testing for melanocortin-1-receptor (MC1R) gene variants that confer moderate melanoma risk. Participants (N = 145 Albuquerque, NM) were tested as part of a randomized controlled trial. Two weeks after receiving MC1R genetic risk feedback, participants answered open-ended questions regarding their reactions to the MC1R feedback report. Participants' comprehension of their feedback (average-risk or higher-risk for melanoma) was evaluated through qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. Most participants demonstrated comprehension of their feedback results (i.e., 63% of average-risk participants [ARPs]; 51% of higher-risk participants [HRPs]). Miscomprehension was evident in fewer participants (i.e., 16% of ARPs, 11% of HRPs). A few ARPs misunderstood the purpose of testing, whereas a few HRPs reported confusion about the meaning of their risk feedback. Some participants' responses to the open-ended questions were too ambiguous to ascertain comprehension or miscomprehension (i.e., 21% of ARPs, 38% of HRPs). Taken together, these findings suggest that genetic testing feedback for MC1R risk variants is largely comprehensible to general population participants. This study adds to the work examining comprehension and usage of common, moderate risk genetic information in public health contexts. However, to maximize the utility of genetic risk information in the general population, further research is needed to investigate and address areas where common genetic risk feedback misunderstandings occur.

Behavioral and Psychological Outcomes Associated with Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Albuquerque Primary Care.

Public availability of genetic information is increasing; thus, efforts to improve diversity in basic and translational research in genomics is a top priority. Given the increasing U.S. incidence and mortality of melanoma, and the prevalence of common melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene melanoma risk variants in the general population, we examined genomic testing of MC1R for skin cancer risk in a randomized controlled trial in Albuquerque, New Mexico primary care. Participants were 48% Hispanic and were randomized 5:1 to a MC1R test invitation or usual care. We assessed 3 month sun protection, skin cancer screening, and skin cancer worry outcomes associated with testing, and key effect moderators (e.g., cancer risk perceptions, and skin cancer risk factors). Our findings indicate that the primary outcomes were unchanged by the MC1R test offer, test acceptance, and level of risk feedback. Moderator analyses showed that those with lower risk perception, and those with skin that readily tans, significantly increased their sun protection in response to higher than average risk feedback. Risk feedback did not prompt cancer worry, and average risk feedback did not erode existing sun protection. This study paves the way for the development of tailored strategies to address low skin cancer risk awareness in this understudied context of public health genomics.

Effects of health literacy skills, educational attainment, and level of melanoma risk on responses to personalized genomic testing.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined how health literacy impacts responses to genetic information. METHODS: We examined this issue among 145 English or Spanish-speaking adult primary care patients enrolled in a trial that offered testing for MC1R gene variants that confer moderately increased melanoma risk. We investigated whether health literacy skills, educational attainment, or melanoma risk were related to short-term cognitive and affective responses to genetic test results. RESULTS: On average, participants found the test results to be highly believable and clear, with low levels of negative emotional responses and moderate levels of positive responses. In adjusted models, health literacy skills were significantly inversely associated with confusion (OR = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.58, 0.96); those with higher education thought significantly less about their test results (ß = -0.66), were less hopeful (ß = -0.89), and had lower distress (ß = -1.15). We also observed a significant interaction (p < .001) between health literacy and melanoma risk in affecting the frequency of thoughts about test results. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that health literacy skills may affect to what extent individuals elaborate cognitively on genetic information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients with lower health literacy skills or education may need support in understanding genetic test results.

MC1R Variation in a New Mexico Population.

BACKGROUND: The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R) contributes to pigmentation, an important risk factor for developing melanoma. Evaluating SNPs in MC1R and association with race/ethnicity, skin type, and perceived cancer risk in a New Mexico (NM) population will elucidate the role of MC1R in a multicultural population. METHODS: We genotyped MC1R in 191 NMs attending a primary care clinic in Albuquerque. We obtained individuals' self-identified race/ethnicity, skin type, and perceived cancer risk. We defined genetic risk as carriage of any one or more of the nine most common SNPs in MC1R. RESULTS: We found that one MC1R SNP, R163Q (rs885479), was identified in 47.6% of self-identified Hispanics and 12.9% of non-Hispanic whites (NHW), making Hispanics at higher "genetic risk" (as defined by carrying one of the MC1R common variants). When we deleted R163Q from analyses, Hispanics were no longer at higher genetic risk (33.3%) compared with NHW (48.3%), consistent with melanoma rates, tanning ability, and lower perceived risk. Hispanics had a perceived risk significantly lower than NHW and a nonsignificant better tanning ability than NHW. CONCLUSIONS: The R163Q variant in MC1R may not be a risk factor for melanoma among NM Hispanics. This suggestion points to the need to carefully interpret genetic risk factors among specific populations. IMPACT: Genetic risk cannot be extrapolated from Northern European populations directly to non-European populations.

Psychosocial and Cultural Determinants of Interest and Uptake of Skin Cancer Genetic Testing in Diverse Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Translational research in genomics has limited reach and requires efforts to broaden access and utility in diverse populations. Skin cancer is common and rates are rising, including among Hispanics. Germline variants in the melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene are common in the population and confer moderate risk for melanoma and basal cell cancers across skin types. Feedback about MC1R risk status may promote skin cancer risk awareness and risk reduction. AIMS: We examined the level of interest in pursuing MC1R testing, and patterns of interest across skin cancer perceived threat and control attitudes, cultural beliefs (family influence on health, health system distrust, cancer fatalism, skin cancer misconceptions), and health literacy. METHODS: We used a study website to inform primary care patients in Albuquerque, NM about the benefits and drawbacks of MC1R testing. Website logon, request of a saliva test kit, and return of the test kit (yes vs. no) were primary assessments of study interest and uptake. RESULTS: Of 499 participants provided with a test offer, 33% requested and returned the test. Lower family influence on participants' health was an important factor both overall and within ethnicity subgroups, and may indicate that primary care patients interested in skin cancer genetic testing see themselves as proactive health seekers, independent from family encouragement. Lower self-efficacy for skin cancer prevention was also an important characteristic of those who tested. CONCLUSION: As evidence for common genetic markers for skin cancer accumulates, these findings suggest characteristics of those most likely to pursue genetic testing for skin cancer risk.

Implementing an Internet-Delivered Skin Cancer Genetic Testing Intervention to Improve Sun Protection Behavior in a Diverse Population: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited translational genomic research currently exists to guide the availability, comprehension, and appropriate use of personalized genomics in diverse general population subgroups. Melanoma skin cancers are preventable, curable, common in the general population, and disproportionately increasing in Hispanics. OBJECTIVE: Variants in the melanocortin-1 receptor (MC1R) gene are present in approximately 50% of the population, are major factors in determining sun sensitivity, and confer a 2-to-3-fold increase in melanoma risk in the general population, even in populations with darker skin. Therefore, feedback regarding MC1R risk status may raise risk awareness and protective behavior in the general population. METHODS: We are conducting a randomized controlled trial examining Internet presentation of the risks and benefits of personalized genomic testing for MC1R gene variants that are associated with increased melanoma risk. We will enroll a total of 885 participants (462 participants are currently enrolled), who will be randomized 6:1 to personalized genomic testing for melanoma risk versus waiting list control. Control participants will be offered testing after outcome assessments. Participants will be balanced across self-reported Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity (n=750 in personalized genomic testing for melanoma risk arm; n=135 in control arm), and will be recruited from a general population cohort in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is subject to year-round sun exposure. Baseline surveys will be completed in-person with study staff and follow-up measures will be completed via telephone. RESULTS: Aim 1 of the trial will examine the personal utility of personalized genomic testing for melanoma risk in terms of short-term (3-month) sun protection and skin screening behaviors, family and physician communication, and melanoma threat and control beliefs (ie, putative mediators of behavior change). We will also examine potential unintended consequences of testing among those who receive average-risk personalized genomic testing for melanoma risk findings, and examine predictors of sun protection at 3 months as the outcome. These findings will be used to develop messages for groups that receive average-risk feedback. Aim 2 will compare rates of test consideration in Hispanics versus non-Hispanics, including consideration of testing pros and cons and registration of a decision to either accept or decline testing. Aim 3 will examine personalized genomic testing for melanoma risk feedback comprehension, recall, satisfaction, and cancer-related distress in those who undergo testing, and whether these outcomes differ by ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic), or sociocultural or demographic factors. Final outcome data collection is anticipated to be complete by October 2017, at which point data analysis will commence. CONCLUSIONS: This study has important implications for personalized genomics in the context of melanoma risk, and may be broadly applicable as a model for delivery of personalized genomic feedback for other health conditions.

Translation and adaptation of skin cancer genomic risk education materials for implementation in primary care.

Genomic medicine has revolutionized disease risk identification and subsequent risk reduction interventions. Skin cancer risk genomic feedback is a promising vehicle to raise awareness and protective behaviors in the general population, including Hispanics who are largely unaware of their risks. Yet, personalized genomics currently has limited reach. This study is the initial phase of a randomized controlled trial investigating the personal utility and reach of genomic testing and feedback for melanoma. Semi-structured cognitive interviews (N = 28), stratified across education level, were conducted to assess the comprehension and acceptability of translated skin cancer genomic risk education materials with Spanish-speaking Hispanic primary care patients. Overall, materials were comprehensible and acceptable with 33 of 246 terms/concepts identified as difficult. Common problems included translation challenges (e.g., peeling from sunburn), ambiguous concepts (e.g., healthcare system), and problematic terms (e.g., risk version). Aiming to expand the reach of genomic medicine across subpopulations that may benefit from it, necessary modifications were made to education materials to improve comprehensibility, acceptability, and cultural relevance.