Racial discrimination and healthcare system trust among American adults with and without cancer.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic minoritized groups report disproportionately lower trust in the healthcare system. Lower healthcare system trust is potentially related to increased exposure to racial discrimination in medical settings, but this association is not fully understood. We examined the association between racial discrimination in medical care and trust in the healthcare system among people with and without a personal cancer history. METHODS: We examined racial discrimination and trust in a nationally representative American adult sample from the Health Information National Trends Survey 6. Racial discrimination was defined as any unfair treatment in healthcare based on race or ethnicity. Trust in the healthcare system (eg, hospitals and pharmacies) was grouped into low, moderate, and high trust. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to compare low and moderate trust relative to high trust in the healthcare system and estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 5,813 respondents (15% with a personal cancer history) were included 92% (n = 5,355) reported no prior racial discrimination experience during medical treatment. Prior experiences of racial discrimination were positively associated with low (OR = 6.12, 95% CI: 4.22-8.86) and moderate (OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.96-3.72) trust in the healthcare system, relative to high trust. Similar associations were observed when stratifying by personal cancer history. CONCLUSION: Respondents who reported racial discrimination during medical encounters had lower trust in the healthcare system, especially respondents with a personal cancer history. Our findings highlight the need to address racial discrimination experiences during medical care to build patient trust and promote healthcare access.

Combined Breast and Lung Cancer Screening Among Dual-Eligible Women: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is consistently the leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, yet lung cancer screening (LCS) rates remain low. By contrast, screening mammography rates are reliably high, suggesting that screening mammography can be a "teachable moment" to increase LCS uptake among dual-eligible women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective survey study conducted at two academic institutions. Patients undergoing screening mammography were evaluated for LCS eligibility and offered enrollment in a pilot dual-cancer screening program. A series of surveys was administered to characterize participants' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes about LCS before and after undergoing dual screening. Data were descriptively summarized. RESULTS: Between August 2022 and July 2023, 54 LCS-eligible patients were enrolled. The study cohort was 100% female and predominantly White (81%), with a median age of 57 y and median of 36 pack-y of smoking. Survey results showed that 98% felt they were at risk for lung cancer, with most (80%) motivated by early detection of potential cancer. Regarding screening barriers, 58% of patients lacked knowledge about LCS eligibility and 47% reported concerns about screening cost. Prior to undergoing LCS, 87% of patients expressed interest in combined breast and lung screening. Encouragingly, after LCS, 84% were likely or very likely to undergo dual screening again and 93% found the shared decision-making visit helpful or very helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Pairing breast and LCS is a feasible, acceptable intervention that, along with increasing patient and provider education about LCS, can increase LCS uptake and reduce lung cancer mortality.

All of Us participant perspectives on the return of value in research.

PURPOSE: To understand participant preferences for receiving specific types of research information, whether information preferences vary across sociodemographic groups, and the types of health providers participants could access to understand returned information. METHODS: All of Us Research Program participants completed a value of returning research information survey. Stratified sampling was implemented to enhance participant diversity and avoid noncoverage. We used weighted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between the most valuable information types, access to providers, and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Participants (N = 20,405) were diverse in their race/ethnicity (eg, 52% were White, 18% were Hispanic/Latino or Spanish, 3% were Asian, and 20% were Black or African American). Most participants (78.6%) valued information about their risk of serious genetic diseases with available treatment. Primary care physicians, specialists, and genetic counselors were the top providers that participants could access for help understanding returned information. Information preferences and provider access varied across sociodemographic groups. For example, as income levels increased, the odds of placing value on genetic results indicating risk of serious disease with available treatment increased when compared with the lowest income levels (P value < .001). CONCLUSION: Although genetic information was most valuable to participants, preferences about specific information types varied across sociodemographic groups.

Patient Lung Cancer Screening Decisions and Environmental and Psychosocial Factors.

Importance: Screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality, but uptake is low in the US; understanding how patients make decisions to engage with lung cancer screening is critical for increasing uptake. Prior research has focused on individual-level psychosocial factors, but environmental factors (eg, historical contexts that include experiencing racism) and modifying factors-those that can be changed to make it easier or harder to undergo screening-also likely affect screening decisions. Objective: To investigate environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influencing lung cancer screening decision-making and develop a conceptual framework depicting relationships between these factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimethod qualitative study was conducted from December 2021 to June 2022 using virtual semistructured interviews and 4 focus groups (3-4 participants per group). All participants met US Preventive Services Task Force eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening (ie, age 50-80 years, at least a 20 pack-year smoking history, and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years). Screening-eligible US participants were recruited using an online panel. Main Outcomes and Measures: Key factors influencing screening decisions (eg, knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators) were the main outcome. A theory-informed, iterative inductive-deductive approach was applied to analyze data and develop a conceptual framework summarizing results. Results: Among 34 total participants (interviews, 20 [59%]; focus groups, 14 [41%]), mean (SD) age was 59.1 (4.8) years and 20 (59%) identified as female. Half had a household income below $20 000 (17 [50%]). Participants emphasized historical and present-day racism as critical factors contributing to mistrust of health care practitioners and avoidance of medical procedures like screening. Participants reported that other factors, such as public transportation availability, also influenced decisions. Additionally, participants described psychosocial processes involved in decisions, such as perceived screening benefits, lung cancer risk appraisal, and fear of a cancer diagnosis or harmful encounters with practitioners. In addition, participants identified modifying factors (eg, insurance coverage) that could make receiving screening easier or harder. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of patient lung cancer screening decisions, environmental, psychosocial, and modifying factors influenced screening decisions. The findings suggest that systems-level interventions, such as those that help practitioners understand and discuss patients' prior negative health care experiences, are needed to promote effective screening decision-making.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.

Trust is vital to public confidence in health and science, yet there is no consensus on the most useful way to conceptualize, define, measure, or intervene on trust and its related constructs (e.g., mistrust, distrust, and trustworthiness). In this review, we synthesize literature from this wide-ranging field that has conceptual roots in racism, marginalization, and other forms of oppression. We summarize key definitions and conceptual frameworks and offer guidance to scholars aiming to measure these constructs. We also review how trust-related constructs are associated with health outcomes, describe interventions in this field, and provide recommendations for building trust and institutional trustworthiness and advancing health equity. We ultimately call for future efforts to focus on improving the trustworthiness of public health professionals, scientists, health care providers, and systems instead of aiming to increase trust in these entities as they currently exist and behave.

Integrating participants as partners in research governance and operations: an approach from the All of Us Research Program Engagement Core.

OBJECTIVES: During the last two decades, researchers and funders increasingly recognised the value of engaging patients and communities in research. Despite progress, community engagement remains challenging. There are few examples of successful participant engagement in governance of large-scale research programmes. Here we describe efforts to engage participants as partners in new governance roles in the All of Us Research Program, a precision medicine research initiative which intends to enrol at least one million participants. Using intentional, participant-centric engagement strategies, the All of Us Engagement Core recruited and integrated a diverse group of participants into governance roles including Steering and Executive Committees. Evaluation measures included a survey to assess Consortium Members' readiness for participant engagement. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period, all items on the survey increased (higher readiness). Of the 291 respondents to the 2021 survey, respondents most frequently agreed that participant perspectives are essential (100%), participants understand enough to contribute meaningfully (94%) and participants should be involved in setting goals (96%). Respondents least frequently agreed that participants should have an equal voice in Working Groups (75%), Steering Committee (69%) and Executive Committee (63%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, participants can be effectively integrated into large-scale research governance, which is associated with increased researcher readiness for engagement.

County-level barriers in the COVID-19 vaccine coverage index and their associations with willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine across racial/ethnic groups in the U.S.

Background: County-level vaccination barriers (sociodemographic barriers, limited healthcare system resources, healthcare accessibility barriers, irregular healthcare seeking behaviors, history of low vaccination) may partially explain COVID-19 vaccination intentions among U.S. adults. This study examined whether county-level vaccination barriers varied across racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. and were associated with willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, this study assessed whether these associations differed across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: This study used data from the REACH-US study, a large online survey of U.S. adults (N = 5,475) completed from January 2021-March 2021. County-level vaccination barriers were measured using the COVID-19 Vaccine Coverage Index. Ordinal logistic regression estimated associations between race/ethnicity and county-level vaccination barriers and between county-level vaccination barriers and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Models adjusted for covariates (age, gender, income, education, political ideology, health insurance, high-risk chronic health condition). Multigroup analysis estimated whether associations between barriers and willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine differed across racial/ethnic groups. Results: American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino ELP [English Language Preference (ELP); Spanish Language Preference (SLP)], and Multiracial adults were more likely than White adults to live in counties with higher overall county-level vaccination barriers [Adjusted Odd Ratios (AORs):1.63-3.81]. Higher county-level vaccination barriers were generally associated with less willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, yet associations were attenuated after adjusting for covariates. Trends differed across barriers and racial/ethnic groups. Higher sociodemographic barriers were associated with less willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (AOR:0.78, 95% CI:0.64-0.94), whereas higher irregular care-seeking behavior was associated with greater willingness to receive the vaccine (AOR:1.20, 95% CI:1.04-1.39). Greater history of low vaccination was associated with less willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine among Black/African American adults (AOR:0.55, 95% CI:0.37-0.84), but greater willingness to receive the vaccine among American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic/Latino ELP adults (AOR:1.90, 95% CI:1.10-3.28; AOR:1.85, 95% CI:1.14-3.01). Discussion: Future public health emergency vaccination programs should include planning and coverage efforts that account for structural barriers to preventive healthcare and their intersection with sociodemographic factors. Addressing structural barriers to COVID-19 treatment and preventive services is essential for reducing morbidity and mortality in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.

Colon cancer is a common and preventable cancer in the USA and testing for colon cancer can be done at home with a simple test. Yet, many people remain unscreened. This is particularly true for people who may not have ready access to health care, such as those who have limited incomes or resources or who live in rural areas. Most people live close to a pharmacy and visit a pharmacy more frequently than a primary care office. Pharmacies commonly offer services beyond medication dispensing (e.g. flu shot, diabetes management), making them a potential avenue for increasing colon cancer screening. This study aimed to learn what patients think about receiving colon cancer screening through pharmacies. We interviewed 32 people who fit the age-range recommended for colon cancer screening. They were open to, even embracing of, getting screened for colon cancer through a pharmacy, primarily because of its convenience, accessibility, and because it would not require a co-pay. At the same time, they emphasized the need for privacy and coordination with their primary care provider. We concluded that colon cancer screening in pharmacies is potentially a good option for people, provided they have privacy and that their primary care providers are informed.

Disparities in geospatial patterns of cancer care within urban counties and structural inequities in access to oncology care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine geospatial patterns of cancer care utilization across diverse populations in New Jersey-a state where most residents live in urban areas. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We used data from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry from 2012 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We examined the location of cancer treatment among patients 20-65 years of age diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or invasive cervical cancer and investigated differences in geospatial patterns of care by individual and area-level (e.g., census tract-level) characteristics. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Multivariate generalized estimating equation models were used to determine factors associated with receiving cancer treatment within residential counties, residential hospital service areas, and in-state (versus out-of-state) care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We observed significant differences in geospatial patterns of cancer treatment by race/ethnicity, insurance type, and area-level factors. Even after adjusting for tumor characteristics, insurance type, and other demographic factors, non-Hispanic Black patients had a 5.6% higher likelihood of receiving care within their own residential county compared to non-Hispanic White patients (95% CI: 2.80-8.41). Patients insured with Medicaid and those without insurance had higher likelihoods of receiving care within their residential county compared to privately insured individuals. Patients living in census tracts with the highest quintile of social vulnerability were 4.6% more likely to receive treatment within their residential county (95% CI: 0.00-9.30) and were 2.7% less likely to seek out-of-state care (95% CI: -4.85 to -0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Urban populations are not homogenous in their geospatial patterns of cancer care utilization, and individuals living in areas with greater social vulnerability may have limited opportunities to access care outside of their immediate residential county. Geographically tailored efforts, along with socioculturally tailored efforts, are needed to help improve equity in cancer care access.

Assessing patient-level knowledge of precision medicine in a community health center setting.

As precision medicine approaches are implemented, cancer treatment decisions have come to require comprehension of genetic tests and their role in risk stratification and treatment options. Acceptance and implementation of precision medicine requires patient understanding of numeracy, genetic literacy, health literacy, and medical trust. Implementing precision medicine in a US federally qualified community health center (FQCHC) setting has received little attention. Using a mixed-methods approach, we sought to identify patient-level factors influencing the understanding of cancer risk and precision medicine among FQCHC patients. We enrolled 26 English-speaking adults aged 40-79 years. Participants enrolled in focus groups and completed surveys to assess patient-level understanding of precision medicine, numeracy, and health literacy. The majority of participants were female (77%) and self-identified as African American (89%). Approximately one-third reported having a high school degree or less. While health literacy was generally high, 42% felt that genes or genetics had little impact on health and most (69%) reported little familiarity with precision medicine. Many participants reported that trust in their providers was extremely or very important when receiving genetic tests. Numeracy levels were moderate, with nearly half reporting some discomfort working with fractions and 38% finding numerical information only occasionally useful. Findings suggest that patients may lack familiarity with precision medicine concepts relevant for understanding cancer treatment decisions. Future educational efforts may help bridge the gap in patient understanding and facilitate equitable opportunities for precision medicine for all patients, including those seeking care from community health centers.

Racial Disparities in Lung Cancer Stage of Diagnosis Among Adults Living in the Southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Black Americans receive a diagnosis at later stage of lung cancer more often than White Americans. We undertook a population-based study to identify factors contributing to racial disparities in lung cancer stage of diagnosis among low-income adults. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which multilevel factors contribute to racial disparities in stage of lung cancer at diagnosis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cases of incident lung cancer from the prospective observational Southern Community Cohort Study were identified by linkage with state cancer registries in 12 southeastern states. Logistic regression shrinkage techniques were implemented to identify individual-level and area-level factors associated with distant stage diagnosis. A subset of participants who responded to psychosocial questions (eg, racial discrimination experiences) were evaluated to determine if model predictive power improved. RESULTS: We identified 1,572 patients with incident lung cancer with available lung cancer stage (64% self-identified as Black and 36% self-identified as White). Overall, Black participants with lung cancer showed greater unadjusted odds of distant stage diagnosis compared with White participants (OR,1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.59). Greater neighborhood area deprivation was associated with distant stage diagnosis (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.19-2.11). After controlling for individual- and area-level factors, no significant difference were found in distant stage disease for Black vs White participants. However, participants with COPD showed lower odds of distant stage diagnosis in the primary model (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98). Interesting and complex interactions were observed. The subset analysis model with additional variables for racial discrimination experiences showed slightly greater predictive power than the primary model. INTERPRETATION: Reducing racial disparities in lung cancer stage at presentation will require interventions on both structural and individual-level factors.

Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 among adults in the southeastern United States.

Limited research has explored the mental health impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S., especially among Black and low-income Americans who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. To address this gap in the literature, we investigated factors associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms during the pandemic. From October to December 2020, over 4400 participants in the Southern Community Cohort Study (SCCS) completed a survey about the impact of the pandemic. The SCCS primarily enrolled adults with low income in 12 southeastern states. We used polytomous unconditional logistic regression to investigate factors associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms. About 28% of respondents reported mild or moderate/severe depressive symptoms and 30% reported mild or moderate/severe anxiety symptoms. Respondents in fair/poor health had significantly higher odds of moderate/severe depression and anxiety than those in very good/excellent health (depression: odds ratio (OR) = 4.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.57-6.23]; anxiety: OR = 4.77 [95%CI: 3.63-6.28]). Similarly, living alone was associated with higher odds of moderate/severe depression and anxiety (depression: OR = 1.74 [95%CI: 1.38-2.18]; anxiety: OR = 1.57 [95%CI: 1.27-1.95]). Individuals whose physical activity or vegetable/fruit consumption decreased since the start of the pandemic also had higher odds of moderate/severe depression and anxiety. Results overall suggest that individuals in fair/poor health, living alone, and/or experiencing decreased physical activity and vegetable/fruit consumption have higher risk of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to support individuals experiencing depression and anxiety during the pandemic.

Rapid and Deferred Help Seeking Among African American Parents of Children With Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the factors African American parents consider when seeking care for their child after emotional and behavioral difficulties emerge. This study aimed to examine factors associated with seeking professional care within 30 days after identifying a child's need (i.e., rapid care seeking) and with deferring care for ≥1 year. METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed African American parents raising a child with emotional or developmental challenges (N=289). Logistic regression was used to examine associations of parent activation, medical mistrust, and care-seeking barriers with two outcomes: rapidly seeking care and deferring care seeking. RESULTS: About 22% of parents rapidly sought care, and 49% deferred care for 1 year or longer. Parents were more likely to rapidly seek care if they had higher parent activation scores; lived with other adults with mental health challenges; or, contrary to the authors' hypothesis, mistrusted doctors. Parents were less likely to rapidly seek care if the challenge did not initially bother them much or if their health insurance would not cover the service. Parents were more likely to defer care if they feared involuntary hospitalization for their child or if their health insurance would not cover the service. Parents were less likely to defer care if they had at least some college education or lived with other adults with mental health challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based pediatric and child welfare professionals should be informed about facilitators and barriers to mental health care seeking as part of efforts to develop interventions that support African American families.

Development and Validation of the Trust in My Doctor, Trust in Doctors in General, and Trust in the Health Care Team Scales.

RATIONALE: Historic and present-day racism and inequity in the United States (U.S.) have resulted in diminished trust in health care among many populations. A key barrier to improving trust in health care is a dearth of well-validated measures appropriate for diverse populations. Indeed, systematic reviews indicate a need to develop and test updated trust measures that are multidimensional and inclusive of relevant domains (e.g., fairness). OBJECTIVE: We developed three trust measures: the Trust in My Doctor (T-MD), Trust in Doctors in General (T-DiG), and Trust in the Health Care Team (T-HCT) scales. METHODS: After developing an initial item pool, expert reviewers (n = 6) provided feedback on the face validity of each scale. We conducted cognitive interviews (n = 21) with a convenience sample of adults to ensure items were interpreted as intended. In 2020, we administered an online survey to a convenience sample of U.S. adults recruited through the Qualtrics Panel (n = 801) to assess scale reliability and validity. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated acceptable model fit for second order latent factor models for each scale (root mean square error of approximation: <0.07, comparative fit index: ≥0.98, and standardized root mean square residual: ≤0.03). The T-MD contained 25 items and six subscales: communication competency, fidelity, systems trust, confidentiality, fairness, and global trust. The T-DiG and T-HCT each contained 29 items and seven subscales (the same subscales in the T-MD plus an additional subscale related to stigma-based discrimination). Each scale was strongly correlated with existing trust measures and perceived racism in health care and was significantly associated with delayed health care seeking and receipt of a routine health exam. CONCLUSIONS: The multidimensional T-MD, T-DiG, and T-HCT scales have sound psychometric properties and may be useful for researchers evaluating trust-related interventions or conducting studies where trust is an important construct or main outcome.

Everyday discrimination and cancer metaphor preferences: The mediating effects of needs for personal significance and cognitive closure.

Metaphors are often used to describe cancer experiences (e.g., battle, journey). Few studies explore how social threats (e.g., discrimination) shape metaphor preferences. We examined the relationship between discrimination and preferences for cancer battle metaphors (i.e., concrete, action-based) versus journey metaphors (i.e., open-ended, reflective) and mediating effects of needs for personal significance and cognitive closure. We also stratified the analysis when discrimination was/was not attributed to race and by racial/ethnic group. Four-hundred twenty-seven U.S. participants completed an online survey. Items included everyday discrimination, need for personal significance, need for cognitive closure, and preference for cancer scenarios using battle or journey metaphors. Multigroup structural equation modeling examined: serial mediation (i.e., discrimination predicting metaphor preference via needs for personal significance and cognitive closure) stratified by discrimination attribution; and single mediation (i.e., discrimination predicting need for cognitive closure via need for personal significance) stratified by racial/ethnic group. Discrimination was associated with battle metaphor preferences through serial mediation when discrimination was not attributed to race (ß = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01,0.05]). Discrimination was directly associated with journey metaphor preferences (ß = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.37,-0.06]) and the serial mediation was nonsignificant when discrimination was attributed to race. The single mediation model varied across racial/ethnic groups and was strongest for Non-Hispanic White participants (ß = 0.17, 95% CI [0.07,0.30]). Discrimination may shape cancer metaphor preferences through needs for personal significance and cognitive closure, yet these relationships differ based on whether discrimination is attributed to race and racial/ethnic group. Given that the U.S. health system often focuses on battle metaphors when framing cancer treatment and screenings, individuals who prefer journey metaphors (i.e., those who experienced more frequent racial discrimination in the present study) may experience a systematic disadvantage in cancer communication. A more careful consideration of cultural, racial, and ethnic differences in metaphor use may be a crucial step towards reducing cancer disparities.

Community Health Worker Training Curricula and Intervention Outcomes in African American and Latinx Communities: A Systematic Review.

In recent years, community health workers (CHWs) have emerged as key stakeholders in implementing community-based public health interventions in racially diverse contexts. Yet little is known about the extent to which CHW training curriculums influence intervention effectiveness in marginalized racial and ethnic minority communities. This review summarizes evidence on the relationship between CHW training curricula and intervention outcomes conducted among African American and Latinx populations. We conducted a literature search of intervention studies that focused on CHW public health interventions in African American and Latinx populations using PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies employed to conduct outcome (e.g., blood pressure and HbA1c) and process evaluations (e.g., knowledge and self-efficacy) of CHW-led interventions. Out of 3,295 articles from the database search, 36 articles met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the strength of evidence linking specific CHW training curricula components to primary intervention health outcomes was weak, and no studies directly linked outcomes to specific characteristics of CHW training. Studies that described training related to didactic sessions or classified as high intensity reported higher percentages of positive outcomes compared to other CHW training features. These findings suggest that CHW training may positively influence intervention effectiveness but additional research using more robust methodological approaches is needed to clarify these relationships.

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients. METHODS: We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value. RESULTS: Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items. CONCLUSION: Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

Evaluating Potential Racial Inequities in Low-dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US, and significant racial disparities exist in lung cancer outcomes. For example, Black men experience higher lung cancer incidence and mortality rates than their White counterparts. New screening recommendations for low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) promote earlier detection of lung cancer in at-risk populations and can potentially help mitigate racial disparities in lung cancer mortality if administered equitably. Yet, little is known about the extent of racial differences in uptake of LDCT. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential racial disparities in LDCT screening in a large community-based cancer center in central North Carolina. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of the initial patients undergoing LDCT in a community-based cancer center (n = 262). We used the Pearson chi-squared test to assess potential racial disparities in LDCT screening. RESULTS: Study results suggest that Black patients may be less likely than White patients to receive LDCT screening when eligible (χ2 = 51.41, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Collaboration among healthcare providers, researchers, and decision makers is needed to promote LDCT equity.

The potential impact of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion on reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities in African American males.

Few investigations have explored the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act on health disparity outcomes in states that chose to forgo Medicaid expansion. Filling this evidence gap is pressing as Congress grapples with controversial healthcare legislation that could phase out Medicaid expansion. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a commonly diagnosed, preventable cancer in the US that disproportionately burdens African American men and has substantial potential to be impacted by improved healthcare insurance coverage. Our objective was to estimate the impact of the Affordable Care Act (increasing insurance through health exchanges alone or with Medicaid expansion) on colorectal cancer outcomes and economic costs among African American and White males in North Carolina (NC), a state that did not expand Medicaid. We used an individual-based simulation model to estimate the impact of ACA (increasing insurance through health exchanges alone or with Medicaid expansion) on three CRC outcomes (screening, stage-specific incidence, and deaths) and economic costs among African American and White males in NC who were age-eligible for screening (between ages 50 and 75) during the study period, years of 2013-2023. Health exchanges and Medicaid expansion improved simulated CRC outcomes overall, though the impact was more substantial among AAs. Relative to health exchanges alone, Medicaid expansion would prevent between 7.1 to 25.5 CRC cases and 4.1 to 16.4 per 100,000 CRC cases among AA and White males, respectively. Our findings suggest policies that expanding affordable, quality healthcare coverage could have a demonstrable, cost-saving impact while reducing cancer disparities.