Narrative change for health equity in grassroots community organizing: A study of initiatives in Michigan and Ohio.

To achieve health equity, there is a need to act on the social determinants of health. This reality is now understood more widely, and in greater detail, than ever. Amid this movement toward health equity, there has been a natural gravitation to community organizing, which has long worked to produce more equitable systems and policies. Community organizing builds power through cycles of listening, participatory research, collective action, and reflection. One manifestation of this power is that organizing initiatives can often influence which issues are up for public debate, and the terms of those debates. This dimension of community power is often described by practitioners as narrative change work, and involves intervening on, complicating, and resisting dominant societal narratives that hinder action on the systems that perpetuate inequity. This article reports results from a study of organizing initiatives in Detroit, MI and Cincinnati, OH which both engaged in intentional narrative change work around health and health equity. We analyzed data from interviews with 35 key leaders across both cities. Results describe the organizational processes and activities taking place in both sites, with an emphasis on one issue in each city: educational equity in Cincinnati and water equity in Detroit. We then use coded interview data to examine how narrative change work took place in organizing around these issues during the COVID-19 pandemic, a challenging time for organizing initiatives. Results provide insights into adaptations taking place in community organizing during this time, as well as various approaches to narrative change work as part of holistic efforts to build and exercise community power to alter social determinants of health.

Stories of self, us, and now: narrative and power for health equity in grassroots community organizing.

Introduction: Community organizing initiatives, which build power through cycles of listening, participatory research, collective action, and reflection, have demonstrated the capacity to intervene on, complicate, and resist dominant societal narratives while promoting alternative public narratives focused on shared values and hope for a better future. Methods: To explore processes of public narrative change and their relationship to community and organizational empowerment, we interviewed 35 key leaders in community organizing initiatives in Detroit, MI and Cincinnati, OH about how narrative change takes place within community organizing practices. Results: Leaders' perspectives revealed crucial roles for narrative and storytelling in guiding individual and collective behavior, supporting the development of relationships of trust and accountability, and linking personal and collective experiences to pressing social issues. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that systemic change is a labor-intensive process and one that requires the development of leaders (stories of self) and the cultivation of collective structures (stories of us) capable of enacting power to effect change with urgency (stories of now). We conclude by discussing implications of these findings for public narrative interventions and related health equity promotion efforts.

Effect of the Fit2Thrive Intervention on Patient-reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Full Factorial Trial.

BACKGROUND: Moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) interventions improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of physical and psychological health among breast cancer survivors (BCS); however, the effects of specific intervention components on PROs are unknown. PURPOSE: To use the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) to examine overall effects of the Fit2Thrive MVPA promotion intervention on PROs in BCS and explore whether there are intervention component-specific effects on PROs. METHODS: Physically inactive BCS [n = 269; Mage = 52.5 (SD = 9.9)] received a core intervention (Fitbit + Fit2Thrive smartphone app) and were randomly assigned to one of 32 conditions in a full factorial experiment of five components ("on" vs. "off"): (i) support calls, (ii) deluxe app, (iii) text messages, (iv) online gym, and (v) buddy. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires assessed anxiety, depression, fatigue, physical functioning, sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairment at baseline, post-intervention (12-week), and 24-week follow-up. Main effects for all components at each time point were examined using an intention to treat mixed-effects model. RESULTS: All PROMIS measures except sleep disturbance significantly improved (p's < .008 for all) from baseline to 12-weeks. Effects were maintained at 24-weeks. The "on" level of each component did not result in significantly greater improvements on any PROMIS measure compared to the "off" level. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in Fit2Thrive was associated with improved PROs in BCS, but improvements did not differ for "on" vs. "off" levels for any component tested. The low-resource Fit2Thrive core intervention is a potential strategy to improve PROs among BCS. Future studies should test the core in an RCT and examine various intervention component effects in BCS with clinically elevated PROs.

A multi-site trial of an electronic health integrated physical activity promotion intervention in breast and endometrial cancers survivors: MyActivity study protocol.

Despite the known benefits of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for breast and endometrial cancer survivors, most are insufficiently active, interventions response is heterogeneous, and MVPA programming integration into cancer care is limited. A stepped care approach, in which the least resource-intensive intervention is delivered first and additional components are added based on individual response, is one strategy to enhance uptake of physical activity programming. However, the most effective intervention augmentation strategies are unknown. In this singly randomized trial of post-treatment, inactive breast and endometrial cancer survivors (n = 323), participants receive a minimal intervention including a Fitbit linked with their clinic's patient portal and, in turn, the electronic health record (EHR) with weekly feedback delivered via the portal. MVPA progress summaries are sent to participants' oncology team via the EHR. MVPA adherence is evaluated at 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks; non-responders (those meeting ≤80% of the MVPA goal over previous 4 weeks) at each timepoint are randomized once for the remainder of the 24-week intervention to one of two "step-up" conditions: (1) online gym or (2) coaching calls, while responders continue with the minimal Fitbit+EHR intervention. The primary outcome is ActiGraph-measured MVPA at 24 and 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes include symptom burden and functional performance at 24 and 48 weeks. This trial will inform development of an effective, scalable, and tailored intervention for survivors by identifying non-responders and providing them with the intervention augmentations necessary to increase MVPA and improve health outcomes. Clinical Trials Registration # NCT04262180.

Browse or browsing: Investigating goat preferences for feeding posture, feeding height and feed type.

Goats naturally browse different forages in various postures; this differs from typical farm practice, thus there are opportunities to improve goat welfare by understanding what and how they like to eat. We investigated if feeding preference was related to posture, feeder height relative to the ground, and type of feed. Sixteen adult, Saanen cross females participated in two experiments comparing a floor-level feeder (grazing posture; farm standard), with an elevated feeder (browsing posture; Exp1) and a platform-level feeder (raised, grazing posture; Exp2), when two forages (leaves, grass) were offered. Measurements included feed intake (g of DM/feeder), feeder switching frequency, first feeder visited, latency to visit first feeder and exploration and non-feeding activity time. Effects of posture (Exp1), height (Exp2) and feed type were analyzed. Type of feed affected preference for feeding posture and height. All goats consumed leaves over grass (Exp1: POP: 188 ± 6.52 g, GRA: 20.3 ± 7.19 g; Exp2: POP: 191 ± 6.15 g, GRA: 0.231 ± 6.91 g; P < 0.001), and the feeder containing leaves was often visited first (Exp 1: GRA/POP: 94% of visits, P < 0.001, POP/GRA: 53%, P = 0.724; Exp 2: GRA/POP: 91%, P < 0.001; POP/GRA: 69%, P = 0.041). When goats received only leaves, they consumed more from the floor-level (162 ± 22.2 g) vs. elevated level (102 ± 21.9 g) feeder (P = 0.039). When goats received only grass, there was no posture or height preference; however, they changed feeders more frequently (at least 4x (Exp1) and 2x (Exp2) more than other combinations; P > 0.01). Feed intake was negatively affected by exploring time (Exp1 only: r = -0.541; P < 0.001) and performing non-feeding activities (Exp1: r = -0.698; P < 0.001; Exp2: r = -0.673; P < 0.001). We did not identify a preference for elevated feeding posture; however, we suggest that our short test (compared to previous work) encouraged goats to make choices based on line-of-sight and also that the elevated feeder design (replicated from previous work) made leaf access harder. Nonetheless, we highlight that some goats actively used the elevated feeder; this coupled with the clear preference for leaves over grass, suggests that offering feed type and presentation diversity would allow individuals to express their natural feeding behavior more fully.

Young, Empowered and Strong: A Web-Based Education and Supportive Care Intervention for Young Women With Breast Cancer Across the Care Continuum.

PURPOSE: Patient-centered digital interventions may help empower young women to self-manage symptoms and psychosocial concerns and support informational needs often unaddressed in clinic. METHODS: Young, Empowered and Strong (YES) is an interactive web-based intervention designed to engage young women with personalized education and symptom self-management resources on the basis of responses to patient-reported outcome-based questionnaires. We piloted YES among young women (< 45 years) with newly diagnosed early breast cancer (EBC) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and breast cancer survivors (BCSs). Assessments were deployed weekly (EBC and MBC) or every 4 weeks (BCSs) over 12 weeks. At study completion, use, feasibility, and acceptability of YES were evaluated via a survey and semistructured interview. RESULTS: Thirty women were enrolled between April and June 2019: 10 EBC, 10 BCSs, and 10 MBC. The mean age at diagnosis and enrollment was 36 (range 25-44) and 39 (range 31-44) years, respectively. Most participants were actively treated (96%, 27 of 28) with endocrine therapy (54%, 15 of 28) or chemotherapy (43%, 12 of 28). Overall, 61% (180 of 296) of assessments were completed (EBC: 70%, BCSs: 63%, and MBC: 52%). Of 37 patient-reported outcome and need domains, the most frequently triggered were sexual health (EBC: 90%, BCSs: 90%, and MBC: 90%), anxiety (EBC: 80%, BCSs: 90%, and MBC: 90%), stress and mindfulness (EBC: 80%, BCSs: 90%, and MBC: 90%), and fatigue (EBC: 90%, BCSs: 80%, and MBC: 90%). On postpilot survey, participants reported that YES helped them to learn (50%, 7 of 14), monitor (43%, 6 of 14), and manage (57%, 8 of 14) their symptoms. CONCLUSION: YES is a feasible and acceptable digital intervention to support young women across the breast cancer care continuum. The nearly universal triggering of sexual and mental health needs suggests suboptimal management in the clinical setting and the potential for self-management through a digital platform.

Impact of Cancer History on Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested increased mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer but lacked rigorous comparisons to patients without cancer. We investigated whether a current cancer diagnosis or cancer history is an independent risk factor for death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with a history of cancer admitted to two large hospitals between March 13, 2020, and May 10, 2020, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and matched them 1:2 to patients without a history of cancer. RESULTS: Men made up 56.2% of the population, with a median age of 69 years (range, 30-96). The median time since cancer diagnosis was 35.6 months (range, 0.39-435); 80% had a solid tumor, and 20% had a hematologic malignancy. Among patients with cancer, 27.8% died or entered hospice versus 25.6% among patients without cancer. In multivariable analyses, the odds of death/hospice were similar (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.82). The odds of intubation (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.78), shock (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.81) were lower for patients with a history of cancer versus controls. Patients with active cancer or who had received cancer-directed therapy in the past 6 months had similar odds of death/hospice compared with cancer survivors (univariable OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66-2.60; multivariable OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.69-3.16). CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of cancer hospitalized for COVID-19 had similar mortality to matched hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer, and a lower risk of complications. In this population, patients with active cancer or recent cancer treatment had a similar risk for adverse outcomes compared with survivors of cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study investigated whether a current cancer diagnosis or cancer history is an independent risk factor for death or hospice admission in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Active cancer, systemic cancer therapy, and a cancer history are not independent risk factors for death from COVID-19 among hospitalized patients, and hospitalized patients without cancer are more likely to have severe COVID-19. These findings provide reassurance to survivors of cancer and patients with cancer as to their relative risk of severe COVID-19, may encourage oncologists to provide standard anticancer therapy in patients at risk of COVID-19, and guide triage in future waves of infection.