From study plans to capacity building: a journey towards health equity in cancer survivorship.

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Association of receiving opioid medication-assisted treatment with sexual identity and mental health/substance use disorder symptoms in a nationally representative sample of adults.

Background: Although the literature suggests that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder, limited studies have assessed the prevalence or the association between MAT use and sexual identity, mental health, or substance use disorder among a nationally representative sample. We assessed the prevalence and association of opioid MAT use between sexual identity, depressive disorder symptoms, alcohol use dependence, and marijuana use dependence in the United States. Methods: We used the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health public-use data on adults aged 18-64 years (N = 38,841) to conduct a weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 4.80% and 2.32% of the population identified as bisexual and lesbian/gay, respectively. About 0.31% (612,750 people) of the population reported receiving opioid MAT, 3.73% had alcohol use dependence, 1.42% had marijuana use dependence, and 9.13% had major depressive episode (MDE) symptoms. Of those who had received opioid MAT, 0.57% were bisexuals and 1.07% were lesbians/gays, 0.65% were people with alcohol use dependence, 2.32% with marijuana use dependence, and 1.59% with MDE symptoms. Lesbian/gay individuals were more likely to receive opioid MAT (AOR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.42, 8.25) compared to heterosexual individuals. The odds were higher for people with marijuana use dependence (AOR = 3.44, 95% CI = 1.47, 8.06) and MDE symptoms (AOR = 5.22, 95% CI = 3.46, 7.89) than their counterparts. Conclusions: In this study, sexual minorities, people with MDE symptoms, and those dependent on marijuana use were more likely to receive opioid MAT, suggesting the need to investigate further opioid use disorder symptoms and their risk factors among these populations.

Examining readiness for implementing practice changes in federally qualified health centers: A rapid qualitative study.

Implementing evidence-based interventions remains slow in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). The purpose of this study is to qualitatively examine the R = MC2 (Readiness = motivation × innovation specific capacity × general capacity) heuristic subcomponents in the context of implementing general and colorectal cancer screening (CRCS)-related practice changes in FQHCs. We conducted 17 interviews with FQHC employees to examine (1) experiences with successful or unsuccessful practice change efforts, (2) using approaches to promote CRCS, and (3) opinions about R = MC2 subcomponents. We conducted a rapid qualitative analysis to examine the frequency, depth, and spontaneity of subcomponents. Priority, compatibility, observability (motivation), intra- and interorganizational relationships (innovation-specific capacity), and organizational structure and resource utilization (general capacity) emerged as highly relevant. For example, organizational structure was described as related to an organization's open communication during meetings to help with scheduling procedures. The results contribute to understanding organizational readiness in the FQHC setting and can be helpful when identifying and prioritizing barriers and facilitators that affect implementation.

Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness is a key factor for successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), but a valid and reliable measure to assess readiness across contexts and settings is needed. The R = MC2 heuristic posits that organizational readiness stems from an organization's motivation, capacity to implement a specific innovation, and its general capacity. This paper describes a process used to examine the face and content validity of items in a readiness survey developed to assess organizational readiness (based on R = MC2) among federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) EBIs. METHODS: We conducted 20 cognitive interviews with FQHC staff (clinical and non-clinical) in South Carolina and Texas. Participants were provided a subset of items from the readiness survey to review. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit feedback from participants using "think aloud" and probing techniques. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom and WebEx. Participants were asked 1) about the relevancy of items, 2) how they interpreted the meaning of items or specific terms, 3) to identify items that were difficult to understand, and 4) how items could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in ATLAS.ti. Findings were used to revise the readiness survey. RESULTS: Key recommendations included reducing the survey length and removing redundant or difficult to understand items. Additionally, participants recommended using consistent terms throughout (e.g., other units/teams vs. departments) the survey and changing pronouns (e.g., people, we) to be more specific (e.g., leadership, staff). Moreover, participants recommended specifying ambiguous terms (e.g., define what "better" means). CONCLUSION: Use of cognitive interviews allowed for an engaged process to refine an existing measure of readiness. The improved and finalized readiness survey can be used to support and improve implementation of CRCS EBIs in the clinic setting and thus reduce the cancer burden and cancer-related health disparities.