The Impact of COVID-19 on the All of Us Research Program.

The All of Us Research Program, a health and genetics epidemiologic data collection program, has been substantially affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although the program is highly digital in nature, certain aspects of the data collection require in-person interaction between staff and participants. Before the pandemic, the program was enrolling approximately 12,500 participants per month at more than 400 clinical sites. In March 2020, because of the pandemic, all in-person activity at program sites and by engagement partners was paused to develop processes and procedures for in-person activities that incorporated strict safety protocols. In addition, the program adopted new data collection methodologies to reduce the need for in-person activities. Through February 2022, a total of 224 clinical sites had reactivated in-person activity, and all enrollment and engagement partners have adopted new data collection methods that can be used remotely. As the COVID-19 pandemic persists, the program continues to require safety procedures for in-person activity and continues to generate and pilot methodologies that reduce risk and make it easier for participants to provide information.

Amplifying Their Voices: Advice, Guidance, and Perceived Value of Cancer Biobanking Research Among an Older, Diverse Cohort.

The use of biobanks may accelerate scientists' chances of developing cures and treatments that are tailored to individuals' biological makeup-a function of the precision medicine movement. However, given the underrepresentation of certain populations in biobanks, the benefits of these resources may not be equitable for all groups, including older, multi-ethnic populations. The objective of this study was to better understand older, multi-ethnic populations' (1) perceptions of the value of cancer biobanking research, (2) study design preferences, and (3) guidance on ways to promote and increase participation. This study was designed using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach and involved eight FGDs with 67 older (65-74 years old) black and white residents from Baltimore City and Prince George's County, MD. FGDs lasted between 90 and 120 min, and participants received a $25 Target gift card for their participation. Analysis involved an inductive approach in which we went through a series of open and axial coding techniques to generate themes and subthemes. Multiple themes emerged from the FGDs for the development of future cancer-related biobanking research including (1) expectations/anticipated benefits, (2) biobanking design preferences, and (3) ways to optimize participation. Overall, most participants were willing to provide biospecimens and favored cancer-related biobank. To increase participation of older, diverse participants in biobanking protocols, researchers need to engage older, diverse persons as consultants in order to better understand the value of biobanking research to individuals from the various populations. Scientists should also incorporate suggestions from the community on garnering trust and increasing comfort with study design.

Mobilizing social support networks to improve cancer screening: the COACH randomized controlled trial study design.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged populations face many barriers to cancer care, including limited support in navigating through the complexities of the healthcare system. Family members play an integral role in caring for patients and provide valuable care coordination; however, the effect of family navigators on adherence to cancer screening has not previously been evaluated. Training and evaluating trusted family members and other support persons may improve cancer outcomes for vulnerable patients. METHODS: Guided by principles of community based participatory research (CBPR), "Evaluating Coaches of Older Adults for Cancer Care and Healthy Behaviors (COACH)" is a community-based randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a trained participant-designated coach (support person or care giver) in navigating cancer-screening for older African American adults, 50-74 years old. Participants are randomly assigned as dyads (participant+coach pair) to receiving either printed educational materials only (PEM--control group) or educational materials plus coach training (COACH--intervention group). We defined a coach as family member, friend, or other lay support person designated by the older adult. The coach training is designed as a one-time, 35- to 40-minute training consisting of: 1) a didactic session that covers the role of the coach, basic facts about colorectal, breast and cervical cancers (including risk factors, signs and symptoms and screening modalities), engaging the healthcare provider in cancer screening, insurance coverage for screening, and related healthcare issues, 2) three video skits addressing misconceptions about and planning for cancer screening, and 3) an interactive role-play session with the trainer to reinforce and practice strategies for encouraging the participant to get screened. The primary study outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants completing at least one of the recommended screenings (for breast, cervix or colorectal cancer) between the control and intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Building on trusted patient contacts to encourage cancer screening, COACH is a highly sustainable intervention in a high-risk population. It has the potential to minimize the effect of mistrust of the medical establishment on screening behaviors by mobilizing participants' existing support networks. If effective, the intervention could have a high impact on health care disparities research across multiple diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01613430 ). Registered June 5, 2012.

Diversity and inclusion for the All of Us research program: A scoping review.

The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) is a national effort to accelerate health research by exploring the relationship between lifestyle, environment, and genetics. It is set to become one of the largest research efforts in U.S. history, aiming to build a national resource of data from at least one million participants. All of Us aims to address the need for more diversity in research and set the stage for that diversity to be leveraged in precision medicine research to come. This paper describes how the program assessed demographic characteristics of participants who have enrolled in other U.S. biomedical research cohorts to better understand which groups are traditionally represented or underrepresented in biomedical research. We 1) reviewed the enrollment characteristics of national cohort studies like All of Us, and 2) surveyed the literature, focusing on key diversity categories essential to the program's enrollment aims. Based on these efforts, All of Us emphasizes enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities, and has formally designated the following additional groups as historically underrepresented: individuals-with inadequate access to medical care; under the age of 18 or over 65; with an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; who have a cognitive or physical disability; have less than a high school education or equivalent; are intersex; identify as a sexual or gender minority; or live in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Research accounting for wider demographic variability is critical. Only by ensuring diversity and by addressing the very barriers that limit it, can we position All of Us to better understand and tackle health disparities.

Community Engagement to Address Cancer Health Disparities: A Process EVALUATION using the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: African Americans suffer disproportionately from cancer health disparities, and population-level prevention is needed. OBJECTIVES: A community-academic partnership to address cancer health disparities in two predominately African American jurisdictions in Maryland was evaluated. METHODS: The Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) was used in a process evaluation to assess the partnership in eight domains (partnership synergy, leadership, efficiency, management, resources, decision making, participation, and satisfaction). RESULTS: Mean scores in each domain were high, indicative of a functional and synergistic partnership. However, scores for decision making (Baltimore City's mean score = 9.3; Prince George's County's mean score = 10.8; p = .02) and participation (Baltimore City's mean score = 16.0; Prince George's County's mean score = 18.0; p = .04) were significantly lower in Baltimore City. CONCLUSIONS: Community-academic partnerships are promising approaches to help address cancer health disparities in African American communities. Factors that influence decision making and participation within partnerships require further research.