Mixed methods evaluation of the inaugural year of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's (CPCRN) scholars program.

PURPOSE: A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. METHODS: The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and ten mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar's program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. RESULTS: Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. CONCLUSION: The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.

"The ban is there, but it is not there": perceptions of cigarette users and tobacco vendors regarding ban on the sale of loose cigarettes in India.

Introduction: Banning the sales of loose cigarettes is recommended by Article 16 of the World Health Organization - Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This study aims to understand the perceptions of cigarette users and tobacco vendors regarding such a ban. Methods: Using a systematic recruitment and interview protocol, we interviewed cigarette users (n = 28) and tobacco vendors (n = 28) from two Indian cities where sales of loose cigarettes were banned (Mumbai) or not banned (Delhi). Separate semi-structured interview guides were used for users and vendors. Interview questions focused on reasons for purchasing loose cigarettes, preference for buying and selling loose vs. packs, thoughts on the necessity of banning loose cigarettes, and the perceived impact of the policy ban for vendors and cigarette users. We performed thematic analysis and used NVivo for organizing transcript coding. Results: The main reasons users cited for purchasing loose cigarettes were financial constraints, social restrictions (fear of getting caught), and limiting cigarette consumption. In Mumbai, awareness of the existing ban was poor among both users and vendors. Those who were aware did not think the policy had been implemented. Users thought that loose cigarettes promoted smoking initiation and prevented them from quitting. Both users and vendors reported that a ban on loose cigarettes would reduce cigarette consumption and promote quit attempts as it would not be possible for everyone to purchase packs because of financial and social reasons. Conclusion: Users in both cities reported easy access to and widespread availability of loose cigarettes. Low awareness of the ban in Mumbai suggested inadequate enforcement. A country-wide ban on the sale of loose cigarettes could be highly effective in preventing smoking initiation and promoting quitting.

Assessment and Documentation of Social Determinants of Health Among Health Care Providers: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Research clearly demonstrates social determinants of health (SDOH) impact health outcomes. Provider consideration of patient SDOH in prevention and treatment planning is critical for improved health care quality and health equity. Despite awareness of the connections between SDOH and improved population health, research demonstrates few providers document patient SDOH. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators of SDOH assessment, documentation, and referral in different health care settings and roles. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with practicing health care providers in South Carolina between August 25, 2022, and September 2, 2022. Participants were recruited via community partners' web-based newsletters or listservs using a purposive sampling design. An interview guide with 19 questions was used to explore the following research question: How do SDOH impact patient health and what are the facilitators and barriers experienced by multidisciplinary health care providers assessing and documenting patient SDOH? RESULTS: Participants (N=5) included a neonatal intensive care unit registered nurse, a nurse practitioner, a certified nurse midwife, a family and preventive medicine physician, and a counselor (licensed clinical social worker) with careers spanning 12 to 32 years. Participant responses are presented according to the following 5 themes: participants' understanding of SDOH for the patient population, assessment and documentation practices, referrals to other providers and community-based resources, barriers and facilitators of SDOH assessment and documentation, and SDOH assessment and documentation training preferences. Overall, participants were aware of the importance of including patient SDOH in assessment and intervention but noted a variety of institutional and interpersonal barriers to assessment and documentation, including time constraints, perceptions of stigma around discussion of SDOH, and limited referral protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Incentivizing inclusion of patient SDOH in health care must be facilitated from the top down, so assessment and documentation can be universally implemented in a pragmatic way that works for providers in a variety of roles and settings for the betterment of health care quality, health equity, and improved population health outcomes. Partnering with community organizations can serve to augment health care organizations' resource and referral availability for addressing patients' social needs.

Social Determinants of Health and Depression among African American Adults: A Scoping Review of Current Research.

Depression in the United States (US) is increasing across all races and ethnicities and is attributed to multiple social determinants of health (SDOH). For members of historically marginalized races and ethnicities, depression is often underreported and undertreated, and can present as more severe. Limited research explores multiple SDOH and depression among African American adults in the US. Guided by Healthy People (HP) 2030, and using cross-disciplinary mental health terminology, we conducted a comprehensive search to capture studies specific to African American adults in the US published after 2016. We applied known scoping review methodology and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. From 12,315 initial results, 60 studies were included in our final sample. Most studies explored the HP 2030 Social and Community Context domain, with a heavy focus on discrimination and social support; no studies examined Health Care Access and Quality. Researchers typically utilized cross-sectional, secondary datasets; no qualitative studies were included. We recommend research that comprehensively examines mental health risk and protective factors over the life course within, not just between, populations to inform tailored health promotion and public policy interventions for improving SDOH and reducing racial and ethnic health disparities.

Elements for successful implementation of a clinic-based health literacy intervention.

Improving health literacy is a national public health priority. Given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is even more critical for health and medical information to be clear and understandable for patients and their families. Clinic-based programs to improve health literacy need to be pragmatic, feasible, and helpful for the implementing clinic and patients. This paper describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a pragmatic, clinic-based health literacy intervention in a safety-net clinic that serves uninsured and indigent patients. Study methods are guided by a previous pilot study and components recommended for pragmatic interventions. An electronic readiness assessment was distributed to out-patient clinics affiliated with a statewide hospital association. The AskMe3 tool was used for the intervention as it is evidence informed and relatively easy to implement. Implementation included ongoing dialogue between the clinic and the academic research team. Within the implementing clinic, data collected from patients via verbally administered questionnaires was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-squares. Interview data collected from the clinic director was analyzed qualitatively for themes. The implementing clinic had some of the lowest average scores of the 34 clinics who participated in the initial readiness assessment. Despite this, they were able to successfully implement the health literacy intervention during a global pandemic. Eighty-eight participants completed patient questionnaires at this clinic. Most patients (96%) agreed the AskMe3 questions helped them talk with the doctor or nurse at their current appointment. Most (99%) also perceived the AskMe3 tool to be very helpful when used in a clinical setting. The clinic director offered that the staff initially thought the intervention would be difficult to implement. However, implementation by clinic volunteers with encouragement and prioritization of health literacy by the clinic director contributed to success. When considering interventions for clinical settings, a pragmatic approach can help with selection and implementation of a program that fits with the realities on the ground. Further, frequent technical assistance can help resolve implementation barriers. Interventions utilizing tools such as AskMe3, because of their simplicity, allow creative solutions to capacity issues for clinics who see a need for health literacy improvements.

Development of a Clinical-Academic-Community Collaboration to Improve Health Literacy.

Limited health literacy is associated with poor patient health outcomes and increased hospitalization rates. Patient-provider communication plays an important role in patient health literacy and the understanding of medical terminology. This study demonstrates how a collaboration between clinical, academic, and community partners was instrumental in the design and implementation of a clinic readiness assessment and a clinic-based pilot intervention to encourage patient-provider communication and improve patient health literacy. A state hospital association, academic research team, and community adult literacy center director collaborated to develop a 60-item clinic readiness assessment and an evidence-informed pilot intervention. The clinic readiness assessment captured clinics' motivation and capacity for pilot implementation and providers' current communication strategies. The intervention centered around AskMe3™ educational materials and involved 2 patient visits (initial and follow-up visits). Data collection instruments for the intervention were administered verbally and included questions about patient demographics and communication needs, and a single-item health literacy measure. Descriptive statistics (frequencies/percentages) were used to analyze results from the clinic readiness assessment and pilot intervention. Establishment of the partnership, and collaborative, iterative development of the clinic readiness assessment and pilot intervention are described. This pilot project resulted in important lessons learned which led to critical modifications that will inform future expansion of the intervention. Collaboration between healthcare leaders, researchers, and community partners is recommended for developing clinic-based health literacy initiatives.