Effect of neighborhood and individual-level socioeconomic factors on breast cancer screening adherence in a multi-ethnic study.

BACKGROUND: Although mammography can significantly reduce breast cancer mortality, many women do not receive their annual breast cancer screening. Differences in screening adherence exist by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and insurance status. However, more detailed investigations into the impact of neighborhood disadvantage and access to resources on screening adherence are lacking. METHODS: We comprehensively examined the effect of individual social, economic, and demographic factors (n = 34 variables), as well as neighborhood level SES (nSES) indicators (n = 10 variables) on breast cancer screening adherence across a multi-ethnic population (n = 472). In this cross-sectional study, participants were surveyed from 2017 to 2018. The data was analyzed using univariate regression and LASSO for variable reduction. Significant predictors were carried forward into final multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models where odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals and p-values were reported. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of participants were non-adherent to breast screening guidelines. Race/ethnicity was not associated with adherence; however, increasing age (OR = 0.97, 95%CI = 0.95-0.99, p = 0.01), renting a home (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.30-0.94, p = 0.04), food insecurity (OR 0.46, 95%CI = 0.22-0.94, p = 0.01), and overcrowding (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.32-0.94, p = 0.01) were significantly associated with lower breast cancer screening adherence. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic indicators at the individual and neighborhood levels impact low breast cancer screening adherence and may help to inform future screening interventions.

'Who is going to put their life on the line for a dollar? That's crazy': community perspectives of financial compensation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Financial compensation of research participants has been standard practice for centuries, however, there is an ongoing debate among researchers and ethicists regarding the ethical nature of this practice. While these debates develop ethical arguments and theories, they fail to incorporate input from those most affected by financial compensation: potential research participants. METHODS: To identify attitudes surrounding clinical research, participants of a long-standing cohort completed a one-time interview. Open-ended questions stimulated a participant-driven discussion surrounding medical research. Following a grounded theory methodology, 58 semistructured interview transcripts were coded, focusing on attitudes surrounding financial compensation of research participants. RESULTS: Of the interviews coded, the majority of participants identified as Black/African American (n=44) and were women (n=40). Five major themes emerged. In support of financial compensation, participants felt that study participants should be compensated for time, effort and risk. However, participants were concerned that compensation may differentially impact low-income populations and entice them to hide potentially harmful side effects. Participants also mentioned that financial compensation may invalidate study results if participants knowingly provide false information to subvert inclusion/exclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: The emergence of both positive and negative themes reiterates the complicated issue of providing financial compensation for study participation. While compensation as a motivator for research participation raises ethical concerns, participants discussed weighing the benefits with the risks in order to make an informed decision. To avoid paternalistic behaviours, research staff must allow potential research participants to review the available information and make the decision that best reflects their wishes.

Effect of Neighborhood and Individual-Level Socioeconomic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence.

Despite the effectiveness of screenings in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, ~25% of US adults do not adhere to screening guidelines. Prior studies associate socioeconomic status (SES) with low screening adherence and suggest that neighborhood deprivation can influence CRC outcomes. We comprehensively investigated the effect of neighborhood SES circumstances (nSES), individual SES, and race/ethnicity on adherence to CRC screening in a multiethnic cross-sectional study. Participant surveys assessing 32 individual-level socioeconomic and healthcare access measures were administered from 2017 to 2018. Participant data were joined with nine nSES measures from the US Census at the census tract level. Univariate, LASSO, and multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression models were used for variable reduction and evaluation of associations. The total study population included 526 participants aged 50-85; 29% of participants were non-adherent. In the final multivariable model, age (p = 0.02) and Non-Hispanic Black race (p = 0.02) were associated with higher odds of adherence. Factors associated with lower adherence were home rental (vs. ownership) (p = 0.003), perception of low healthcare quality (p = 0.006), no routine checkup within two years (p = 0.002), perceived discrimination (p = 0.02), and nSES deprivation (p = 0.02). After comprehensive variable methods were applied, socioeconomic indicators at the neighborhood and individual level were found to contribute to low CRC screening adherence.

The Effect of Discrimination on Likelihood of Participation in a Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Despite efforts to increase minority enrollment in research, racial disparities still exist, and a belief persists that minorities are inherently less likely to enroll in medical research. This lingering view may impact the manner in which studies are presented to minority patients. This study aimed to assess racial differences in reported discrimination while seeking medical care and likelihood to participate in a medical research study. METHODS: 844 residents were enrolled via convenience sampling, and asked to complete a survey designed to examine perceived discrimination while seeking healthcare and likelihood to participate (LoP) in a medical research study. RESULTS: Participants who reported worse treatment than other races had lower mean LoP scores (53.7 ± 17.6) than participants who reported being treated the same as (61.1 ± 16.1) or better than (64.0 ± 15.0) other races (p < .001). There were no significant differences in mean LoP score by race/ethnicity. The interaction of race with discrimination had no significant effect on mean LoP (p = 0.8). There was a statistically significant association between race and discrimination (X2 = 11.32, p = 0.023), although the majority of participants reported no discrimination. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences in the medical arena may have an impact on their willingness to join a medical study. An effective strategy to increase minority participation in research may be to work with investigators and staff on implicit bias with regard to minority patients. Further research should focus on the impact of research staff interactions on an individual's decision-making process.

Development of an urban community-based cohort to promote health disparities research.

OBJECTIVES: Many academic medical centers are positioned amidst disadvantaged urban neighborhoods in which healthcare services are underutilized, participation in research studies is low, and need for health improvement is vast. The goal of Temple Health: Block-by-Block (THB3) is to establish a sustainable cohort of Philadelphia residents engaged in individual and community health improvement through health research. METHODS: Recruitment of a population-based sample from 11 Philadelphia zip codes began in August 2015. The cornerstone of the project is the in-home, biannual assessment of each subject. RESULTS: The first-year goal of 1000 enrolled subjects was met. Greater than 90% of subjects represent minority racial or ethnic groups; average age is 46 years; 65% of subjects have a high school education or less. A high burden of health conditions exists including obesity (54%), smoking (41%), hypertension (44%), and diabetes (17.8%). CONCLUSIONS: THB3 provides a research infrastructure to promote community participation in a health improvement initiative from which future translational research, health education and preventive services will emanate. The launch of this cohort study has provided extensive lessons regarding urban community-based research and health promotion initiatives.