Feasibility of precision smoking treatment in a low-income community setting: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial in The Southern Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of precision smoking treatment in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities has not been studied. METHODS: Participants in the Southern Community Cohort Study who smoked daily were invited to join a pilot randomized controlled trial of three smoking cessation interventions: guideline-based care (GBC), GBC plus nicotine metabolism-informed care (MIC), and GBC plus counseling guided by a polygenic risk score (PRS) for lung cancer. Feasibility was assessed by rates of study enrollment, engagement, and retention, targeting > 70% for each. Using logistic regression, we also assessed whether feasibility varied by age, sex, race, income, education, and attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. RESULTS: Of 92 eligible individuals (79.3% Black; 68.2% with household income < $15,000), 67 (72.8%; 95% CI 63.0-80.9%) enrolled and were randomized. Of these, 58 (86.6%; 95% CI 76.4-92.8%) engaged with the intervention, and of these engaged participants, 43 (74.1%; 95% CI 61.6-83.7%) were retained at 6-month follow-up. Conditional on enrollment, older age was associated with lower engagement (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95, p = 0.008). Conditional on engagement, retention was significantly lower in the PRS arm than in the GBC arm (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03-1.00, p = 0.050). No other selection effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically informed precision smoking cessation interventions are feasible in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, exhibiting high enrollment, engagement, and retention irrespective of race, sex, income, education, or attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. Future smoking cessation interventions in this population should take steps to engage older people and to sustain participation in interventions that include genetic risk counseling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03521141, Registered 27 April 2018, https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT03521141.

Black Women's Perspectives on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Black women on breast cancer risk assessment through a series of one-on-one interviews. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with Black women in Tennessee between September 2020 and November 2020. Guided by the Health Belief Model, qualitative analysis of interview data was performed in an iterative inductive and deductive approach and resulted in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences on a woman's decision to engage with breast cancer risk assessment. RESULTS: A total of 37 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences on a woman's decision to engage in breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Study participants identified several emerging themes regarding women's perspectives on breast cancer risk assessment and potential influences on women's decisions to engage with risk assessment. Much of women's decision context was based on risk appraisal (perceived severity of cancer and susceptibility of cancer), emotions (fear and trust), and perceived risks and benefits of having risk assessment. The decision was further influenced by modifiers such as communication, the risk assessment protocol, access to health care, knowledge, and health status. Perceived challenges to follow-up if identified as high risk also influenced women's decisions to pursue risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Black women in this study identified several barriers to engagement with breast cancer risk assessment. Efforts to overcome these barriers and increase the use of breast cancer risk assessment can potentially serve as a catalyst to address existing breast cancer disparities. Continued work is needed to develop patient-centric strategies to overcome identified barriers.

Barriers to Implementation of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: The Health Care Team Perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess health care professionals' perceptions of barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools in the public health setting through a series of one-on-one interviews with health care team members. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with health care team members in the public health setting in the state of Tennessee between May 2020 and October 2020. An iterative inductive-deductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interview data, resulting in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment. RESULTS: A total of 24 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Participants identified barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment (knowledge and understanding of risk assessment tools, workflow challenges, and availability of personnel); patient-level barriers as perceived by health care team members (psychological, economic, educational, and environmental); and strategies to increase the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment at the provider level (leadership buy-in, training, supportive policies, and incentives) and patient level (improved communication and better understanding of patients' perceived cancer risk and severity of cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers to implementation of breast cancer risk assessment and strategies to overcome these barriers as perceived by health care team members offers an opportunity to improve implementation of risk assessment and to identify a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of young women at high risk for breast cancer.

Dispositional optimism and optimistic bias: Associations with cessation motivation, confidence, and attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether 2 conceptually overlapping constructs, dispositional optimism (generalized positive expectations) and optimistic bias (inaccurately low risk perceptions), may have different implications for smoking treatment engagement. METHOD: Predominantly Black, low-income Southern Community Cohort study smokers (n = 880) self-reported dispositional optimism and pessimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised subscales: 0 = neutral, 12 = high optimism/pessimism), comparative lung cancer risk (Low/Average/High), and information to calculate objective lung cancer risk (Low/Med/High). Perceived risk was categorized as accurate (perceived = objective), optimistically-biased (perceived < objective), or pessimistically-biased (perceived > objective). One-way ANOVAs tested associations between dispositional optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy. Multivariable logistic regressions tested independent associations of optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy with cessation motivation (Low/High), confidence (Low/High), and precision treatment attitudes (Favorable/Unfavorable), controlling for sociodemographics and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Mean dispositional optimism/pessimism scores were 8.41 (SD = 2.59) and 5.65 (SD = 3.02), respectively. Perceived lung cancer risk was 38% accurate, 27% optimistically-biased, and 35% pessimistically-biased. Accuracy was unrelated to dispositional optimism (F(2, 641) = 1.23, p = .29), though optimistically-biased (vs. pessimistically-biased) smokers had higher dispositional pessimism (F(2, 628) = 3.17, p = .043). Dispositional optimism was associated with higher confidence (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.71, 95% CI [1.42, 2.06], p < .001) and favorable precision treatment attitudes (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.37, 2.01], p < .001). Optimistically-biased (vs. accurate) risk perception was associated with lower motivation (AOR = .64, 95% CI [.42, .98], p = .041) and less favorable precision treatment attitudes (AOR = .59, 95% CI [.38, .94], p = .029). CONCLUSIONS: Dispositional optimism and lung cancer risk perception accuracy were unrelated. Dispositional optimism was associated with favorable engagement-related outcomes and optimistically-biased risk perception with unfavorable outcomes, reinforcing the distinctiveness of these constructs and their implications for smoking treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Use of implementation science to plan adoption of a tobacco-free policy on a historically black college/university (HBCU) campus.

Objective: Implementation science tools were used to identify facilitators and barriers to adopting a tobacco-free policy on a historically Black college/university (HBCU). Participants: Study participants included 13 University staff, two students, and two public health educators/school alumni. Data were collected in 2015-2016. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop questions for focus groups and individual interviews. The CFIR was also used by two research team members to code transcripts independently, using an iterative deduction process to achieve ≥85% agreement on CFIR domains. Coded quotations were evaluated using the Qualitative Implementation Framework (QIF) to ascertain next adoption planning steps. Results: Qualitative data suggested that building capacity for tobacco control, linking policy to HBCU identity and priorities such as addressing marijuana use might facilitate adoption of a tobacco-free campus policy. Conclusions: Implementation science tools may be useful for planning adoption of comprehensive tobacco-free policies at HBCUs.

Use of implementation science in tobacco control intervention studies in the USA between 2000 and 2020: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite continuing efforts to reduce tobacco use in the USA, decline in smoking rates have stalled and smoking remains a major contributor to preventable death. Implementation science could potentially improve uptake and impact of evidence-based tobacco control interventions; however, no previous studies have systematically examined how implementation science has been used in this field. Our scoping review will describe the use of implementation science in tobacco control in the USA, identify relevant gaps in research and suggest future directions for implementation science application to tobacco control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our team, including a medical research librarian, will conduct a scoping review guided primarily by Arksey and O'Malley's methodology. We will search English language peer-reviewed literature published from 2000 to 31 December 2020 for terms synonymous with 'tobacco use', 'prevention', 'cessation' and 'implementation science'. The databases included in this search are MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (ProQuest), ERIC (ProQuest) and the Cochrane Library (Wiley). We will include cohort and quasi-experimental studies, single-group experiments and randomised trials that report qualitative and/or quantitative data related to applying implementation science to the planning and/or delivery of interventions to prevent or decrease the use of tobacco products. Studies must target potential or active tobacco users, intervention providers such as educators or healthcare professionals, or US policy-makers. A minimum of two reviewers will independently examine each title and abstract for relevance, and each eligible full text for inclusion and analysis. Use of implementation science, demonstrated by explicit reference to implementation frameworks, strategies or outcomes, will be extracted from included studies and summarised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is exempt from ethics board approval. We will document the equity-orientation of included studies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity Extension checklist. Results will be submitted for conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework Registry (6YRK8).

Attitudes toward Precision Treatment of Smoking in the Southern Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Precision interventions using biological data may enhance smoking treatment, yet are understudied among smokers who are disproportionately burdened by smoking-related disease. METHODS: We surveyed smokers in the NCI-sponsored Southern Community Cohort Study, consisting primarily of African-American, low-income adults. Seven items assessed attitudes toward aspects of precision smoking treatment, from undergoing tests to acting on results. Items were dichotomized as favorable (5 = strongly agree/4 = agree) versus less favorable (1 = strongly disagree/2 = disagree/3 = neutral); a summary score reflecting generalized attitudes was also computed. Multivariable logistic regression tested independent associations of motivation (precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation) and confidence in quitting (low, medium, and high) with generalized attitudes, controlling for sociodemographic factors and nicotine dependence. RESULTS: More than 70% of respondents endorsed favorable generalized attitudes toward precision medicine, with individual item favorability ranging from 64% to 83%. Smokers holding favorable generalized attitudes reported higher income and education (P < 0.05). Predicted probabilities of favorable generalized attitudes ranged from 63% to 75% across motivation levels [contemplation vs. precontemplation: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-3.25, P = 0.001; preparation vs. precontemplation: AOR = 1.83, 95% CI, 1.20-2.78, P = 0.005; contemplation vs. preparation: AOR = 1.15, 95% CI, 0.75-1.77, P = 0.52] and from 59% to 78% across confidence (medium vs. low: AOR = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.19-3.07, P = 0.007; high vs. low: AOR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.68-4.10, P < 0.001; medium vs. high: AOR = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.48-1.11, P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among disproportionately burdened community smokers, most hold favorable attitudes toward precision smoking treatment. Individuals with lower motivation and confidence to quit may benefit from additional intervention to engage with precision smoking treatment. IMPACT: Predominantly favorable attitudes toward precision smoking treatment suggest promise for future research testing their effectiveness and implementation.

Improving Community Advisory Board Engagement in Precision Medicine Research to Reduce Health Disparities.

Community Advisory Boards (CABs) are used in efforts to reduce health disparities; however, there is little documentation in the literature regarding their use in precision medicine research. In this case study, an academic-CAB partnership developed a questionnaire and patient educational materials for two precision smoking cessation interventions that involved use of genetic or genetically-informed information. The community-engaged research (CEnR) literature provided a framework for enhancing benefits to CAB members involved in developing research documents for use with a low-income, ethnically diverse population of smokers.The academic partners integrated three CEnR strategies: 1) in-meeting statements acknowledging their desire to learn from community partners, 2) in-meeting written feedback to and from community partners, and 3) a survey to obtain CAB member feedback post-meetings. Strategies 1 and 2 yielded modifications to pertinent study materials, as well as suggestions for improving meeting operations that were then adopted, as appropriate, by the academic partners. The survey indicated that CAB members valued the meeting procedure changes which appeared to have contributed to improvements in attendance and satisfaction with the meetings. Further operationalization of relevant partnership constructs and development of tools for measuring these aspects of community-academic partnerships is warranted to support community engagement in precision medicine research studies.

Using an Implementation Research Framework to Identify Potential Facilitators and Barriers of an Intervention to Increase HPV Vaccine Uptake.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of cervical cancer has been decreasing in the United States over the last decade, Hispanic and African American women have substantially higher rates than Caucasian women. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary, although insufficient, cause of cervical cancer. In the United States in 2013, only 37.6% of girls 13 to 17 years of age received the recommended 3 doses of a vaccine that is almost 100% efficacious for preventing infection with viruses that are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers. Implementation research has been underutilized in interventions for increasing vaccine uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), an approach for designing effective implementation strategies, integrates 5 domains that may include barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination. These include the innovative practice (Intervention), communities where youth and parents live (Outer Setting), agencies offering vaccination (Inner Setting), health care staff (Providers), and planned execution and evaluation of intervention delivery (Implementation Process). METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts of interviews with 30 community health care providers was conducted using the CFIR to code potential barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination implementation. RESULTS: All CFIR domains except Implementation Process were well represented in providers' statements about challenges and supports for HPV vaccination. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive implementation framework for promoting HPV vaccination may increase vaccination rates in ethnically diverse communities. This study suggests that the CFIR can be used to guide clinicians in planning implementation of new approaches to increasing HPV vaccine uptake in their settings. Further research is needed to determine whether identifying implementation barriers and facilitators in all 5 CFIR domains as part of developing an intervention contributes to improved HPV vaccination rates.

Time from Screening Mammography to Biopsy and from Biopsy to Breast Cancer Treatment among Black and White, Women Medicare Beneficiaries Not Participating in a Health Maintenance Organization.

PURPOSE: There is a breast cancer mortality gap adversely affecting Black women in the United States. This study assessed the relationship between number of days between abnormal mammogram, biopsy, and treatment among Medicare (Part B) beneficiaries ages 65 to 74 and 75 to 84 years, accounting for race and comorbidity. METHODS: A cohort of non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women residing in the continental United States and receiving no services from a health maintenance organization was randomly selected from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services denominator file. The cohort was followed from 2005 to 2008 using Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data. The sample included 4,476 women (weighted n = 70,731) with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to identify predictors of waiting times. FINDINGS: Black women had a mean of 16.7 more days between biopsy and treatment (p < .001) and 15.7 more days from mammogram to treatment (p = .003) than White women. Median duration from abnormal mammogram to treatment exceeded National Quality Measures for Breast Centers medians regardless of race, age, or number of comorbidities (overall 43 days vs. the National Quality Measures for Breast Centers value of 28 days). CONCLUSIONS: Medical care delays may contribute, in part, to the widening breast cancer mortality gap between Black women and White women. Further study, with additional clinical and social information, is needed to broaden scientific understanding of racial determinants and assess the clinical significance of mammogram to treatment times among Medicare beneficiaries.

Designing Consumer Health Technologies for the Treatment of Patients With Depression: A Health Practitioner's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The consumer health technologies used by patients on a daily basis can be effectively leveraged to assist them in the treatment of depression. However, because treatment for depression is a collaborative endeavor, it is important to understand health practitioners' perspectives on the benefits, drawbacks, and design of such technologies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to understand how patients and health practitioners can effectively and successfully influence the design of consumer health treatment technologies for treating patients with depression. METHODS: A group of 10 health practitioners participated in individual semistructured contextual interviews at their offices. Health practitioners rated an a priori identified list of depression indicators using a 7-point Likert scale and generated a list of depression indicators. Finally, health practitioners were asked to rate the perceived usefulness of an a priori identified list of depression treatment technologies using a 7-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Of the 10 health practitioners interviewed, 5 (50%) were mental health practitioners, 3 (30%) nurses, and 2 (20%) general practitioners. A total of 29 unique depression indicators were generated by the health practitioners. These indicators were grouped into 5 high-level categories that were identified by the research team and 2 clinical experts: (1) daily and social functioning, (2) medication, (3) nutrition and physical activity, (4) demographics and environment, and (5) suicidal thoughts. These indicators represent opportunities for designing technologies to support health practitioners who treat patients with depression. The interviews revealed nuances of the different health practitioners' clinical practices and also barriers to using technology to guide the treatment of depression. These barriers included (1) technology that did not fit within the current practice or work infrastructure, (2) technology that would not benefit the current treatment process, (3) patients forgetting to use the technology, and (4) patients not being able to afford the technology. CONCLUSIONS: In order to be successful in the treatment of depression, consumer health treatment technologies must address health practitioners' technology concerns early on in the design phase, account for the various types of health practitioners, treatment methods, and clinical practices, and also strive to seamlessly integrate traditional and nontraditional depression indicators within various health practitioners' clinical practices.

Psychosocial services in the first 30 days after diagnosis: results of a web-based survey of Children's Oncology Group (COG) member institutions.

BACKGROUND: This study examines what proportion of families of recently diagnosed pediatric cancer patients are offered recommended psychosocial services, and if that proportion is linked to size of institution or number of psychosocial staff. PROCEDURES: A web-based survey was offered to all institutions belonging to the Children's Oncology Group (COG). RESULTS: Respondents from 127/212 (=59.9%) COG institutions provided information about percentage of families offered specific services within the first 30 days after diagnosis, and barriers to providing such services, as well as information about other factors that might affect their ability to provide psychosocial care. All sites reported that ≥50% of families are offered 21 of the 27 services investigated in this study. Over half of respondents (n=290) indicated that inadequate funding for staff (72%) and families' time constraints (63%) were barriers to providing psychosocial care. There was a positive relationship between the total number of psychosocial staff and the number of new patients seen annually (Pearson correlation=0.3409, P-value < 0.0004), but not between the total number of psychosocial staff and specific services offered. Most sites do not use validated assessment tools or evidence-based psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: While some version of most recommended psychosocial services are offered across COG institutions, evidence-based psychosocial services are offered at only 11% of sites. Advances in psychosocial outcomes in pediatric oncology could be accelerated by multi-site collaboration, use of standardized assessment tools, and evidence-based interventions.