A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Black women's perspectives on bladder health: Social-ecological and life course contexts.

AIMS: This paper explores Black women's perspectives on bladder health using a social-ecological conceptual framework and life course perspective. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of data from the Study of Habits, Attitudes, Realities, and Experiences (SHARE), a focus group study by the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium. Analysis was conducted on data from five focus groups and a member-checking session where all participants self-identified as Black or African American. RESULTS: Forty-two participants aged 11-14 or 45+ years reported life course experiences with their bladder. The intersection of race and gender was the lens through which participants viewed bladder health. Participants' accounts of their perspectives on bladder health explicitly and implicitly revealed structural racism as an explanatory overarching theme. Participants described (a) historically-rooted and still pervasive practices of discrimination and segregation, engendering inequitable access to quality medical care and public facilities, (b) institutional barriers to toileting autonomy in educational and occupational settings, promoting unhealthy voiding habits, (c) internalized expectations of Black women's stereotyped role as family caregiver, compromising caregiver health, (d) lack of reliable information on bladder health, leading to unhealthy bladder behaviors, and (e) potentially stress-related comorbid chronic conditions and associated medication use, causing or exacerbating bladder problems. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder health promotion interventions should address social-ecological and life course factors shaping Black women's bladder health, including social and structural barriers to accessing equitable health information and medical care.

Mental health and social connection among older lesbian and bisexual women.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in psychosocial and mental health outcomes between older lesbian and bisexual women compared to heterosexual women. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: The study was carried out in the California Teachers Study, a prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Self-identified heterosexual (n = 35,846), lesbian (n = 710), and bisexual (n = 253) women 50 years of age and older were enrolled. MEASUREMENTS: Validated questionnaires were used to measure social connection, overall happiness, and depression. Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing lesbian and bisexual women separately to heterosexual women in relation to psychosocial and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: After controlling for age and marital status, older bisexual women were significantly more likely to report lack of companionship (OR = 2.00; 95% CI, 1.30-3.12) and feeling left out (OR = 2.33; 95% CI, 1.36-3.97) compared to older heterosexual women. The odds of reporting feeling isolated from others was significantly higher in lesbian (OR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.06-2.30) and bisexual women (OR = 2.30; 95% CI, 1.37-3.87) than in heterosexual women. The OR (95% CI) for reporting not being very happy overall was 1.96 (CI, 1.09-3.52) in bisexual women and 1.40 (0.92-2.14) in lesbian women compared to heterosexual women. The likelihood of reporting diagnosed depression was significantly higher in lesbian women (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.38-1.97) and bisexual women (OR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.67-2.93) compared to heterosexual women. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of lesbian and bisexual women in aging research is essential to understand their unique mental and other health needs, including those specific to bisexual women.

A community-engaged approach to the design of a population-based prospective cohort study to promote bladder health.

INTRODUCTION: Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical component of research, but few studies provide details on how to successfully incorporate community perspectives in urological research. This manuscript describes the community engagement strategy used by the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Research Consortium (PLUS) to design RISE FOR HEALTH (RISE), a multicenter, population-based, prospective cohort study to promote bladder health. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PLUS Community Engagement Subcommittee, guided by a set of antiracist community engagement principles and practices, organized, implemented, and communicated findings for all RISE community engagement activities. Community engagement was conducted through a diverse network of community partners at PLUS clinical research centers called Rapid Assessment Partners (RAPs). Via online surveys (4), virtual discussion groups (14), and one-on-one interviews (12), RAPs provided input on RISE processes and materials, including in-person visit procedures, specimen collection instructions, survey data collection instruments, recruitment materials, the study website, and the study name. This process resulted in significant changes to these aspects of the study design with reciprocal benefits for the community partners. DISCUSSION: Meaningful community engagement improved the design and implementation of RISE. PLUS will continue to engage community partners to interpret the RISE study results, disseminate RISE findings, and inform other PLUS studies toward the development of interventions to promote bladder health. Future urological studies would also benefit from community participation in determining priority research questions to address.

RISE FOR HEALTH: Rationale and protocol for a prospective cohort study of bladder health in women.

INTRODUCTION: The spectrum of bladder health and the factors that promote bladder health and prevent lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among women are not well understood. This manuscript describes the rationale, aims, study design, sampling strategy, and data collection for the RISE FOR HEALTH (RISE) study, a novel study of bladder health in women conducted by the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptom (PLUS) Research Consortium. METHODS AND RESULTS: RISE is a population-based, multicenter, prospective longitudinal cohort study of community-dwelling, English- and Spanish-speaking adult women based in the United States. Its goal is to inform the distribution of bladder health and the individual factors (biologic, behavioral, and psychosocial) and multilevel factors (interpersonal, institutional, community, and societal) that promote bladder health and/or prevent LUTS in women across the life course. Key study development activities included the: (1) development of a conceptual framework and philosophy to guide subsequent activities, (2) creation of a study design and sampling strategy, prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion, and (3) selection and development of data collection components. Community members and cross-cultural experts shaped and ensured the appropriateness of all study procedures and materials. RISE participants will be selected by simple random sampling of individuals identified by a marketing database who reside in the 50 counties surrounding nine PLUS clinical research centers. Participants will complete self-administered surveys at baseline (mailed paper or electronic) to capture bladder health and LUTS, knowledge about bladder health, and factors hypothesized to promote bladder health and prevent LUTS. A subset of participants will complete an in-person assessment to augment data with objective measures including urogenital microbiome specimens. Initial longitudinal follow-up is planned at 1 year. DISCUSSION: Findings from RISE will begin to build the necessary evidence base to support much-needed, new bladder health promotion and LUTS prevention interventions in women.

Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) remains lethal in the United States. We investigate the effect of receiving care at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center (NCICC) on survival. METHODS: Data for women diagnosed with CC from 2004 to 2016 who received radiation treatment were extracted from the California Cancer Registry (n = 4250). Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed whether (1) receiving care at NCICCs was associated with risk of CC-specific death, (2) this association remained after multivariable adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status, and (3) this association was explained by receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. RESULTS: Median age was 50 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41-61 years), with median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.3-6.0 years). One-third of patients were seen at an NCICC, and 29% died of CC. The hazard of CC-specific death was reduced by 20% for those receiving care at NCICCs compared with patients receiving care elsewhere (HR = .80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). Adjustment for guideline-concordant treatment and other covariates minimally attenuated the association to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95), suggesting that the survival advantage associated with care at NCICCs may not be due to receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates survival benefit for patients receiving care at NCICCs compared with those receiving care elsewhere that is not explained by differences in guideline-concordant care. Structural, organizational, or provider characteristics and differences in patients receiving care at centers with and without NCI designation could explain observed associations. Further understanding of these factors will promote equality across oncology care facilities and survival equity for patients with CC.

Disparities and trends in the participation of minorities, women, and the elderly in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study was done to determine the representation of minorities, women, and the elderly in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials. METHODS: This is an analysis in the NCI Clinical Data Update System. Patients were evaluated in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer trials from 2000 to 2019. Representation in a trial was determined by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Secondarily, the change in trial participation by multivariable analysis by comparing years 2000 through 2004 to 2015 through 2019 was evaluated. RESULTS: The cohort included 242,720 participants: 197,320 Non-Hispanic White (81.3%), 21,190 Black (8.7%), 11,587 Hispanic (4.8%), and 6880 Asian/Pacific Islander (2.8%). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented for colorectal (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.67; P < .001 and OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001, respectively), lung (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001 and 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77; P < .001, respectively), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001 and OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.66; P < .001) between 2015 and 2019. The odds of participation in 2015 to 2019 increased among Black patients in breast (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.07-%2.32; P < .001), lung (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.73; P < .001), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P < .001). The odds of participation in a trial among Hispanic patients increased for breast (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 3.09-3.56; P < .001), colorectal (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.04-2.96; P < .001), lung (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.20-4.69; P < .001), and prostate cancer (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.04; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that Black and Hispanic patients remain underrepresented in trials, but in recent years, participation has increased. These findings indicate that minority participation has increased over time, but further efforts are needed.

Comparing Latino Community Members' and Clinical Staff's Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Latinos in the United States have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening even though CRC is the third leading cause of cancer death among Latinos. This qualitative study aimed to understand and compare the perspectives of clinical staff (CS) and Latino community members (LCMs) in an urban Southern California community regarding barriers and facilitators of CRC screening. Through purposive sampling, 39 LCMs (mean age: 59.4 years, 79.5% female) were recruited to participate in one of five focus groups, and 17 CS (mean age: 38.8 years, 64.7% female) were recruited to participate in semi-structured in-depth interviews, along with a demographic survey. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, translated, and analyzed using direct content analysis. Demographic data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Findings suggest that CS and LCMs have both similar and opposing perspectives with regard to barriers and facilitators of CRC screening. Themes discussed included attitudes towards CRC screening, CRC knowledge, access to resources, commitments and responsibilities, social support, vicarious learning, patient-provider communication, trust, and social relationships. Study findings can be used to guide interventions and policies to improve access to CRC screening among LCMs.

A Promotor-Led Pilot Study to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Latinos: The Juntos Contra El Cáncer Program.

Background. Latinos have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the United States, despite an overall increase in CRC screening over the past 10 years. To address this disparity, we implemented a promotor-led intervention to increase CRC screening test adherence in community-based settings, connecting community members with a partnering federally qualified health center. Purpose. To evaluate the Juntos Contra el Cáncer/Together Against Cancer (JUNTOS) intervention, by assessing pre-post changes in (1) CRC screening test adherence and (2) CRC knowledge and perceived barriers to CRC screening. We also assessed the feasibility and acceptability of program activities. Method. JUNTOS was a group-based intervention, delivered by promotores (community health workers), to promote CRC screening test adherence among Latino adults. The intervention consisted of a culturally tailored 2½-hour interactive workshop followed by an appointment scheduling assistance from a promotor. Workshop participants were Latino adults (males and females) aged 50 to 75 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening guidelines. We conducted interviews before and 6 to 9 months after the workshop to assess program outcomes. Results. Of the 177 participants included, 118 reported completing the CRC screening test (66.7%) by 6 to 9 months postintervention. We observed baseline to 6- to 9-month increase in CRC knowledge and lower perceived barriers to obtaining CRC screening. Furthermore, the intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable. Conclusion. Results suggest that JUNTOS can be feasibly implemented in partnership with a federally qualified health center. The current study supports group-based CRC interventions in community and clinic settings.

Novel (Multilevel) Focus Group Training for a Transdisciplinary Research Consortium.

Health researchers are increasingly turning to qualitative research for a nuanced understanding of complex health phenomena. The quality and rigor of qualitative research relies on individual data collector skills, yet few guidelines exist for training multidisciplinary, multi-institution qualitative research teams. Specific guidance is needed on qualitative research practices that ensure scientific rigor by optimizing diverse experience and expertise across research centers. We describe our systematic approach to training a cohort of 15 focus group moderators from seven universities in the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium's Study of Habits, Attitudes, Realities, and Experiences (SHARE). SHARE's aim was to explore women and girls' experiences, perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors related to bladder health and function across the life course. Drawing on adult education and action-learning best practices, a three-phase curriculum was designed to maximize moderator proficiency and qualitative research expertise. The phases involved online, interactive web-based education, in-person didactic training with experiential components, and tailored supplemental online training. Evaluative feedback was collected before, during, and after the training. Feedback was used to identify emergent training needs. This training approach may be used by transdisciplinary research teams conducting multisite research to assure qualitative research credibility and trustworthiness.