Connect: Cultivating Academic-Community Partnerships to Address Our Communities' Complex Needs During Public Health Crises.

BACKGROUND: Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 and we sought to understand perceptions and attitudes in four heavily impacted New Jersey counties to develop and evaluate engagement strategies to enhance access to testing. OBJECTIVE: To establish a successful academic/community partnership team during a public health emergency by building upon longstanding relationships and using principles from community engaged research. METHODS: We present a case study illustrating multiple levels of engagement, showing how we successfully aligned expectations, developed a commitment of cooperation, and implemented a research study, with community-based and health care organizations at the center of community engagement and recruitment. LESSONS LEARNED: This paper describes successful approaches to relationship building including information sharing and feedback to foster reciprocity, diverse dissemination strategies to enhance engagement, and intergenerational interaction to ensure sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates how academic/community partnerships can work together during public health emergencies to develop sustainable relationships.

Promoting informed approaches in precision oncology and clinical trial participation for Black patients with cancer: Community-engaged development and pilot testing of a digital intervention.

BACKGROUND: Black patients with cancer are less likely to receive precision cancer treatments than White patients and are underrepresented in clinical trials. To address these disparities, the study aimed to develop and pilot-test a digital intervention to improve Black patients' knowledge about precision oncology and clinical trials, empower patients to increase relevant discussion, and promote informed decision-making. METHODS: A community-engaged approach, including a Community Advisory Board and two rounds of key informant interviews with Black patients with cancer, their relatives, and providers (n = 48) was used to develop and refine the multimedia digital intervention. Thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data. The intervention was then pilot-tested with 30 Black patients with cancer to assess feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and patient empowerment; Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used to analyze quantitative data. RESULTS: The digital tool was found to be feasible, acceptable, and culturally appropriate. Key informants shared their preferences and recommendations for the digital intervention and helped improve cultural appropriateness through user and usability testing. In the pilot test, appreciable improvement was found in participants' knowledge about precision oncology (z = -2.04, p = .052), knowledge about clinical trials (z = -3.14, p = .001), and decisional self-efficacy for targeted/immune therapy (z = -1.96, p = .0495). CONCLUSIONS: The digital intervention could be a promising interactive decision-support tool for increasing Black patients' participation in clinical trials and receipt of precision treatments, including immunotherapy. Its use in clinical practice may reduce disparities in oncology care and research. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We developed a digital interactive decision support tool for Black patients with cancer by convening a Community Advisory Board and conducting interviews with Black patients with cancer, their relatives, and providers. We then pilot-tested the intervention with newly diagnosed Black patients with cancer and found appreciable improvement in participants' knowledge about precision oncology, knowledge about clinical trials, and confidence in making decisions for targeted/immune therapy. Our digital tool has great potential to be an affordable and scalable solution for empowering and educating Black patients with cancer to help them make informed decisions about precision oncology and clinical trials and ultimately reducing racial disparities.

Confusion and anxiety in between abnormal cervical cancer screening results and colposcopy: "The land of the unknown".

OBJECTIVE: Attendance to colposcopy after abnormal cervical cancer screening is essential to cervical cancer prevention. This qualitative study explored patients' understanding of screening results, their experiences of the time leading up to the colposcopy appointment, and colposcopy. METHODS: We recruited women referred for colposcopy from two urban practices in an academic health system. Individual interviews (N = 15) with participants were conducted after colposcopy appointments about their cervical cancer screening histories, current results, and colposcopy experiences. A team analyzed and summarized interviews and coded transcripts in Atlas.ti. RESULTS: We found that most women were confused about their screening results, did not know what a colposcopy was before being referred for one, and experienced anxiety in the interval between receiving their results and having their colposcopy. Most women searched for information online, but found "misinformation," "worst-case scenarios" and generic information that did not resolve their confusion. CONCLUSION: Women had little understanding of their cervical cancer risk and experienced anxiety looking for information and waiting for the colposcopy. Educating patients about cervical precancer and colposcopy, providing tailored information about their abnormal screening test results and potential next steps, and helping women manage distress may alleviate uncertainty while waiting for follow-up appointments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions to manage uncertainty and distress in the interval between receiving an abnormal screening test result and attending colposcopy are needed, even among highly adherent patients.

Experiences of Black and Latinx health care workers in support roles during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

Black and Latinx individuals, and in particular women, comprise an essential health care workforce often serving in support roles such as nursing assistants and dietary service staff. Compared to physicians and nurses, they are underpaid and potentially undervalued, yet play a critical role in health systems. This study examined the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic from the perspective of Black and Latinx health care workers in support roles (referred to here as HCWs). From December 2020 to February 2021, we conducted 2 group interviews (n = 9, 1 group in English and 1 group in Spanish language) and 8 individual interviews (1 in Spanish and 7 in English) with HCWs. Participants were members of a high-risk workforce as well as of communities that suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Overall, they described disruptive changes in responsibilities and roles at work. These disruptions were intensified by the constant fear of contracting COVID-19 themselves and infecting their family members. HCWs with direct patient care responsibilities reported reduced opportunities for personal connection with patients. Perspectives on vaccines reportedly changed over time, and were influenced by peers' vaccination and information from trusted sources. The pandemic has exposed the stress endured by an essential workforce that plays a critical role in healthcare. As such, healthcare systems need to dedicate resources to improve the work conditions for this marginalized workforce including offering resources that support resilience. Overall working conditions and, wages must be largely improved to ensure their wellbeing and retain them in their roles to manage the next public health emergency. The role of HCWs serving as ambassadors to provide accurate information on COVID-19 and vaccination among their coworkers and communities also warrants further study.

Black and Latinx Community Perspectives on COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviors, Testing, and Vaccines.

Importance: Black and Latinx communities have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, yet little work has sought to understand their perspectives. Objective: To explore the experiences of Black and Latinx communities during the pandemic to better understand their perspectives on COVID-19 mitigation behaviors (eg, mask wearing), testing, and vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this community-engaged qualitative study conducted with 18 community-based organizations and 4 health care organizations between November 19, 2020, and February 5, 2021, in New Jersey counties severely affected by the pandemic, group and individual interviews were used to purposively sample 111 Black and Latinx individuals. A total of 13 group interviews were organized by race/ethnicity and language: 4 English-speaking groups with Black participants (n = 34), 3 Spanish-speaking groups with Latinx participants (n = 24), and 4 English-speaking groups with Black and Latinx participants (n = 36). To understand the views of health care workers from these communities, 2 additional groups (n = 9) were convened and supplemented with individual interviews. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of Black and Latinx participants' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perspectives on mitigation behaviors, testing, and vaccines. Results: The study included 111 participants (87 women [78.4%]; median age, 43 years [range, 18-93 years]). Participants described the devastating effects of the pandemic on themselves, loved ones, and their community. Their experiences were marked by fear, illness, loss, and separation. These experiences motivated intense information seeking, mitigation behaviors, and testing. Nevertheless, vaccine skepticism was high across all groups. Participants did not trust the vaccine development process and wanted clearer information. Black participants expressed that they did not want to be subjects of experiments. Conclusions and Relevance: The remaining unknowns about new vaccines need to be acknowledged and described for Black and Latinx communities to make informed decisions. Ultimately, scientists and public officials need to work transparently to address unanswered questions and work collaboratively with trusted community leaders and health professionals to foster partnered approaches, rather than focusing on marketing campaigns, to eliminate vaccine skepticism.