Health Misinformation Exposure and Health Disparities: Observations and Opportunities.

The concepts of health misinformation and health disparities have been prominent in public health literature in recent years, in part because of the threat that each notion poses to public health. How exactly are misinformation proliferation and health disparities related, however? What roles might misinformation play in explaining the health disparities that we have documented in the United States and elsewhere? How might we mitigate the effects of misinformation exposure among people facing relatively poor health outcomes? In this review, we address such questions by first defining health disparities and misinformation as concepts and then considering how misinformation exposure might theoretically affect health decision-making and account for disparate health behavior and health outcomes. We alsoassess the potential for misinformation-focused interventions to address health disparities based on available literature and call for future research to address gaps in our current evidence base.

Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network.

BACKGROUND: Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system. DESIGN: Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018). PARTICIPANTS: Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider. INTERVENTIONS: The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates. KEY RESULTS: During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

Association of Smartphone Ownership and Internet Use With Markers of Health Literacy and Access: Cross-sectional Survey Study of Perspectives From Project PLACE (Population Level Approaches to Cancer Elimination).

BACKGROUND: Telehealth is an increasingly important component of health care delivery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, well-documented disparities persist in the use of digital technologies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe smartphone and internet use within a diverse sample, to assess the association of smartphone and internet use with markers of health literacy and health access, and to identify the mediating factors in these relationships. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to a targeted sample designed to oversample historically underserved communities from April 2017 to December 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the association of internet and smartphone use with outcomes describing health care access and markers of health literacy for the total cohort and after stratifying by personal history of cancer. Health care access was captured using multiple variables, including the ability to obtain medical care when needed. Markers of health literacy included self-reported confidence in obtaining health information. RESULTS: Of the 2149 participants, 1319 (61.38%) were women, 655 (30.48%) were non-Hispanic White, and 666 (30.99%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median age was 51 years (IQR 38-65). Most respondents reported using the internet (1921/2149, 89.39%) and owning a smartphone (1800/2149, 83.76%). Compared with the respondents with smartphone or internet access, those without smartphone or internet access were more likely to report that a doctor was their most recent source of health information (344/1800, 19.11% vs 116/349, 33.2% for smartphone and 380/1921, 19.78% vs 80/228, 35.1% for internet, respectively; both P<.001). Internet use was associated with having looked for information on health topics from any source (odds ratio [OR] 3.81, 95% CI 2.53-5.75) and confidence in obtaining health information when needed (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.00-3.34) compared with noninternet users. Smartphone owners had lower odds of being unable to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.95) than nonsmartphone owners. Among participants with a prior history of cancer, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with higher odds of confidence in ability to obtain needed health information (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.05-30.23) and lower odds of inability to obtain needed medical care (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.47), although these associations were not significant among participants without a prior history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We describe widespread use of digital technologies in a community-based cohort, although disparities persist. In this cohort, smartphone ownership was significantly associated with ability to obtain needed medical care, suggesting that the use of smartphone technology may play a role in increasing health care access. Similarly, major illnesses such as cancer have the potential to amplify health engagement. Finally, special emphasis must be placed on reaching patient populations with limited digital access, so these patients are not further disadvantaged in the new age of telehealth.

Factors associated with biomedical research participation within community-based samples across 3 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Engaging diverse populations in biomedical research, including biospecimen donation, remains a national challenge. This study examined factors associated with an invitation to participate in biomedical research, intent to participate in biomedical research in the future, and participation in biomedical research and biospecimen donation among a diverse, multilingual, community-based sample across 3 distinct geographic areas. METHODS: Three National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers engaged in community partnerships to develop and implement population health assessments, reaching a convenience sample of 4343 participants spanning their respective catchment areas. Data harmonization, multiple imputation, and multivariable logistic modeling were used. RESULTS: African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and other racial minority groups were more likely to be offered opportunities to participate in biomedical research compared to whites. Access to care, history of cancer, educational level, survey language, nativity, and rural residence also influenced opportunity, intent, and actual participation in biomedical research. CONCLUSIONS: Traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups reported heightened opportunity and interest in participating in biomedical research. Well-established community partnerships and long-standing community engagement around biomedical research led to a diverse sample being reached at each site and may in part explain the current study findings. However, this study illustrates an ongoing need to establish trust and diversify biomedical research participation through innovative and tailored approaches. National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers have the potential to increase opportunities for diverse participation in biomedical research through community partnerships and engagement. Additional work remains to identify and address system-level and individual-level barriers to participation in both clinical trials and biospecimen donation for research.

Regulation of iron homeostasis through the erythroferrone-hepcidin axis in sickle cell disease.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) has a distinct pattern of transfusional iron overload (IO) when compared to transfusion-dependent ß-thalassaemia major (TDT). We conducted a single institution prospective study to evaluate plasma biomarkers of iron regulation and inflammation in patients with SCD with IO (SCD IO cases, n = 22) and without IO (SCD non-IO cases, n = 11), and non-SCD controls (n = 13). Hepcidin was found to be inappropriately low, as evidenced by a significantly higher median hepcidin/ferritin ratio in non-SCD controls compared to SCD IO cases (0·3 vs. 0·02, P < 0·0001) and SCD non-IO cases (0·3 vs. 0·02, P < 0·0001), suggesting that certain inhibitory mechanism (s) work to suppress hepcidin in SCD. As opposed to the SCD non-IO state, where hepcidin shows a strong significant positive correlation with ferritin (Spearman ρ = 0·7, P = 0·02), this correlation was lost when IO occurs (Spearman ρ = -0·2, P = 0·4). Although a direct non-linear correlation between erythroferrone (ERFE) and hepcidin did not reach statistical significance both in the IO (Spearman ρ = -0·4, P = 0·08) and non-IO state (Spearman ρ = -0·6, P = 0·07), patients with highest ERFE had low hepcidin levels, suggesting that ERFE contributes to hepcidin regulation in some patients. Our results suggest a multifactorial mechanism of hepcidin regulation in SCD.

The Durham Initiative for Stomach Health (DISH): a pilot community-based Helicobacter pylori education and screening study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all cancers are due to infection. The bacteria Helicobacter pylori is the single leading carcinogenic infectious agent and the main cause of stomach cancer. Prevalence of H. pylori, and, correspondingly, stomach cancer incidence and mortality, is significantly greater among African Americans than whites in the United States. In the present study, we conducted a pilot community-engaged H. pylori education and screening study in partnership with a predominantly African American church in Durham, North Carolina. METHODS: Initially, we consulted with community advisory boards and convened stakeholder meetings with local community members and primary care physicians. We then developed this pilot study through an iterative collaboration with church partners. Our main outcomes were feasibility and acceptability as measured by participation in a one-day H. pylori screening initiative, and participation in follow-up for those who tested positive. We also sought to determine prevalence and determinants of active H. pylori infection in this population. RESULTS: Community engagement informed the event logistics, messaging, educational materials provided, and follow-up plans. A total of 92 individuals participated in the primary study event, 25% of whom had a current H. pylori infection. Of those, 87% returned for the follow-up events, among whom 70% had successfully cleared their infection. CONCLUSIONS: Through community engagement, community-based H. pylori screening and stomach cancer prevention is feasible and acceptable. This is a necessary step in order to move stomach cancer prevention forward to population-based precision H. pylori screening and eradication.

The Fierce Urgency of Now: Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Serious Illness Care.

Racial and ethnic disparities in serious illness care are profound and require an urgent response. We present actionable recommendations for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers to address disparities and advance equity.

Engaging African Americans in Research: The Recruiter's Perspective.

Purpose: To examine barriers recruiters encounter when enrolling African American study participants, identify motivating factors to increase research participation, and provide recommendations to facilitate successful minority recruitment. Background: Recruiters are often the first point of contact between the research study and potential African American participants. While challenges in enrolling African Americans into clinical and epidemiologic research has been reported in numerous studies the non-physician recruiter's role as a determinant of overall participation rates has received minimal attention. Methods: We conducted four 90-minute teleconference focus groups with 18 recruiters experienced in enrolling African Americans for clinical and epidemiologic studies at five academic/medical institutions. Participants represented diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and were asked to reflect on barriers preventing African Americans from participating in research studies, factors that motivated participation, and recommendations to increase participation of African Americans in research. Multi-coder and thematic data analysis was implemented using the Braun and Clarke method. Results: Prominent concerns in recruitment of African Americans in research include fear and mistrust and inflexible research protocols. The participants suggest that improved recruitment could be achieved through cross-cultural and skillset building training opportunities for recruiters, greater community engagement among researchers, and better engagement with clinic staff and research teams.

Connecting Mentally Ill Detainees in Large Urban Jails with Community Care.

Large urban jails have become a collection point for many persons with severe mental illness. Connections between jail and community mental health services are needed to assure in-jail care and to promote successful community living following release. This paper addresses this issue for 2855 individuals with severe mental illness who received community mental health services prior to jail detention in King County (Seattle), Washington over a 5-year time period using a unique linked administrative data source. Logistic regression was used to determine the probability that a detainee with severe mental illness received mental health services while in jail as a function of demographic and clinical characteristics. Overall, 70 % of persons with severe mental illness did receive in-jail mental health treatment. Small, but statistically significant sex and race differences were observed in who received treatment in the jail psychiatric unit or from the jail infirmary. Findings confirm the jail's central role in mental health treatment and emphasize the need for greater information sharing and collaboration with community mental health agencies to minimize jail use and to facilitate successful community reentry for detainees with severe mental illness.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients.

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

The state of Cancer-Focused community outreach and engagement (COE): reflections of black COE directors.

The requirement of community outreach and engagement (COE) as a major component of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant has had enormous impact on the way NCI-designated cancer centers identify, investigate, and address the needs of their catchment area (CA) communities. Given the wide-ranging diversity of our nation, COE's scope of work is extremely demanding and complex. Yet, COE is often marginalized and viewed as void of scientific methods when, in fact, it requires specialized scientific knowledge and a broad range of proficiencies. Black COE scientific directors may be particularly attuned to this marginalization as they have often confronted workplace inequities that resemble the health inequities observed within their cancer center's CA. Thus, Black COE leaders are uniquely positioned to offer insight on the past, present, and future of COE. Key areas discussed include low involvement of minoritized group members and those with appropriate expertise in national COE leadership; the lack of established, consistent criteria for evaluation of COE components and qualifications of evaluators; the need for substantial financial investment in COE; potential misalignment of community priorities and cancer center objectives; professional development and growth of COE staff and leaders; the expanding scope of COE across their respective cancer centers and CAs; and the need for center-wide involvement in COE and an "all-hands-on-deck" approach. These areas warrant thoughtful dialogue as COE evolves, for the benefit and success of all COE leaders. However, this dialogue must include diverse voices representing similarly diverse stakeholders at every level.

Modifiable patient-reported factors associated with cancer-screening knowledge and participation in a community-based health assessment.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify modifiable factors associated with cancer screening in a community-based health assessment. METHODS: 24 organizations at 47 community events in central North Carolina distributed a 91-item survey from April-December 2017. Responses about (1) interest in disease prevention, (2) lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, tobacco), and (3) perceptions of primary care access/quality were abstracted to examine their association with self-reported screening participation and knowledge about breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. RESULTS: 2135/2315 participants (92%; 38.5% White, 38% Black, 9.9% Asian) completed screening questions. >70% of screen-eligible respondents reported guideline-concordant screening. Healthy dietary habits were associated with greater knowledge about breast and colorectal cancer screening; reporting negative attitudes about and barriers to healthcare were associated with less breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening. Having a place to seek medical care (a proxy for primary care access) was independently associated with being ∼5 times as likely to undergo colorectal screening (OR 4.66, 95% CI 1.58-13.79, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse, community-based sample, modifiable factors were associated with screening engagement, highlighting opportunities for behavioral intervention.

Initial Longitudinal Outcomes of Risk-Stratified Men in Their Forties Screened for Prostate Cancer Following Implementation of a Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017-2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL. RESULTS: The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 vs. 1.98, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.

An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.

Development and evaluation of a novel training program to build study staff skills in equitable and inclusive engagement, recruitment, and retention of clinical research participants.

Background: Adequate equitable recruitment of underrepresented groups in clinical research and trials is a national problem and remains a daunting challenge to translating research discoveries into effective healthcare practices. Engagement, recruitment, and retention (ER&R) training programs for Clinical Research Professionals (CRPs) often focus on policies and regulations. Although some training on the importance of diversity and inclusion in clinical research participation has recently been developed, there remains a need for training that couples critical equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) concepts with skill development in effective recruitment and retention strategies, regulations, and best practices. Approach and methods: We developed the ER&R Certificate program as a holistic approach to provide Duke University CRPs the opportunity to build competency in gap areas and to increase comfort in championing equitable partnerships with clinical research participants. The thirteen core and elective courses include blended learning elements, such as e-learning and wiki journaling prompts, to facilitate meaningful discussions. Pre- and post-assessments administered to CRP program participants and their managers assessed program impact on CRP skills in ER&R tasks and comfort in equitable, diverse, and inclusive engagement of clinical research participants. Results and discussion: Results from the first two cohorts indicate that CRPs perceived growth in their own comfort with program learning objectives, especially those centered on participant partnership and EDI principles, and most managers witnessed growth in competence and responsibility for ER&R-related tasks. Results suggest value in offering CRPs robust training programs that integrate EDI and ER&R training.

The 5Ws of Racial Equity in Research: A Framework for Applying a Racial Equity Lens Throughout the Research Process.

Ensuring equity in research is a critical step in advancing health equity. In this perspective, the authors introduce a guiding framework for advancing racial equity in research processes, environments, and among the research workforce, the 5Ws of Racial Equity in Research. Centering their discussion on the 5Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and Why, they use historical and contemporary examples of research inequities to demonstrate how these five simple questions can encourage open discussion and proactive planning for equity in research. They close with an acknowledgment of the framework's broad utility and a researcher-directed call to action.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare Worker Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of the HERO Registry.

Background: The extent to which healthcare worker (HCWs) experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic vary by race or ethnicity after adjustment for confounding factors is not currently known. Methods: We performed an observational prospective cohort study of 24,769 healthcare workers from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, enrolled between April 10, 2020 and June 30, 2021, and evaluated participant experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including testing, diagnosis with COVID-19, emotional experiences, burnout, and interest in vaccines and vaccine clinical trials. Findings: After adjustment for professional role, medical history, and community characteristics, Black and Asian participants were less likely to receive SARS-CoV-2 viral testing (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·82 [0·70, 0·96], p=0·012 and aOR 0·77 [0·67, 0·89], p<0·001 respectively) than White participants. Hispanic participants were more likely to have evidence of COVID-19 infection (aOR 1·23 (1·00, 1·50, p=0·048). Black and Asian participants were less likely to report interest in a COVID-19 vaccine (aOR 0·11 [0·05, 0·25], p<0·001 and aOR 0·48 [0·27, 0·85] p=0·012). Black participants were less likely to report interest in participating in a COVID-19 vaccine trial (aOR = 0·39 [0·28, 0·54], p<0·001). Black participants were also less likely to report 3 or more daily emotional impacts of COVID-19 (aOR = 0·66 [0·53, 0·82], p=<0·001). Black participants were additionally less likely to report burnout (aOR = 0·66 ([0·49, 0·95], p=0·025). Interpretation: In a large, national study of healthcare workers, after adjustment for individual and community characteristics, race/ethnicity disparities in COVID-19 outcomes persist. Future work is urgently needed to understand precise mechanisms behind these disparities and to develop and implement targeted interventions to improve health equity for healthcare workers. Funding: This work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Contract # COVID-19-2020-001.

A Review of Race and Ethnicity in Hospice and Palliative Medicine Research: Representation Matters.

CONTEXT: Despite documented racial and ethnic disparities in care, there is significant variability in representation, reporting, and analysis of race and ethnic groups in the hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) literature. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the race and ethnic diversity of study participants and the reporting of race and ethnicity data in HPM research. METHODS: Adult patient and/or caregiver-centered research conducted in the U.S. and published as JPSM Original Articles from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, were identified. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the frequency of variables related to reporting of race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of 1253 studies screened, 218 were eligible and reviewed. There were 78 unique race and ethnic group labels. Over 85% of studies included ≥ one non-standard label based on Office of Management and Budget designations. One-quarter of studies lacked an explanation of how race and ethnicity data were collected, and 83% lacked a rationale. Over half did not include race and/or ethnicity in the analysis, and only 14 studies focused on race and/or ethnic health or health disparities. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander persons were included in 95%, 71%, 43% 37%,10%, and 4% of studies. In 92% of studies the proportion of White individuals exceeded 57.8%, which is their proportion in the U.S. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are important opportunities to standardize reporting of race and ethnicity, strive for diversity, equity, and inclusion among research participants, and prioritize the study of racial and ethnic disparities in HPM research.

An innovative educational program for addressing health disparities in translational cancer research.

North Carolina Central University (NCCU) and Duke Cancer Institute implemented an NCI-funded Translational Cancer Disparities Research Partnership to enhance translational cancer research, increase the pool of underrepresented racial and ethnic group (UREG) researchers in the translational and clinical research workforce, and equip UREG trainees with skills to increase diversity in clinical trials. The Cancer Research Education Program (C-REP) provided training for UREG graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at Duke and NCCU. An innovative component of C-REP is the Translational Immersion Experience (TIE), which enabled Scholars to gain knowledge across eight domains of clinical and translational research (clinical trials operations, data monitoring, regulatory affairs, UREG accrual, biobanking, community engagement, community outreach, and high-throughput drug screening). Program-specific evaluative metrics were created for three broad domains (clinical operations, basic science/lab research, and population-based science) and eight TIE domains. Two cohorts (n = 13) completed pre- and post-surveys to determine program impact and identify recommendations for program improvement. Scholars reported statistically significant gains in knowledge across three broad domains of biomedical research and seven distinct areas within TIE. Training in translational research incorporating immersions in clinical trials operation, biobanking, drug development, and community engagement adds value to career development of UREG researchers.

Evolution of a longitudinal, multidisciplinary, and scalable patient navigation matrix model.

This Longitudinal patient navigation Matrix Model was developed to overcome barriers across the cancer care continuum by offering prepatients, patients, and their families with support services. The extraordinary heterogeneity of patient needs during cancer screening, risk assessment, treatment, and survivorship as well as the vast heterogeneity of oncology care settings make it nearly impossible to follow a static navigation model. Our model of patient cancer navigation is unique as it enhances the traditional model by being highly adaptable based on both patient and family needs and scalable based on institutional needs and resources (eg, clinical volumes, financial resources, and community-based resources). This relatively new operational model for system-wide and systematic navigation incorporates a carefully cultivated supportive care program that evolved over the last decade from a bottom up approach that identified patient and family needs and developed appropriate resources. A core component of this model includes shifting away from department-centric operations. This model does not require a patient to opt in or independently be able to report their needs or ask for services-it is an opt out model. The multidisciplinary "cross-training" model can also facilitate reimbursement and sustainability by clarifying the differentiating actions that define navigation services: identification of barriers to quality care and specific actions taken to overcome those barriers, across the full continue of cancer care from community engagement to survivorship or end-of-life care.