Mindfulness-based Interventions Across the Cancer Continuum in the United States: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) tested in randomized controlled trials (RCT) across the cancer continuum. DATA SOURCE: Articles identified in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Two independent reviewers screened articles for: (1) topic relevance; (2) RCT study design; (3) mindfulness activity; (4) text availability; (5) country (United States); and (6) mindfulness as the primary intervention component. DATA EXTRACTION: Twenty-eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted on the following variables: publication year, population, study arms, cancer site, stage of cancer continuum, participant demographic characteristics, mindfulness definition, mindfulness measures, mindfulness delivery, and behavioral theory. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used descriptive statistics and preliminary content analysis to characterize the data and identify emerging themes. RESULTS: A definition of mindfulness was reported in 46% of studies and 43% measured mindfulness. Almost all MBIs were tested in survivorship (50%) or treatment (46%) stages of the cancer continuum. Breast cancer was the focus of 73% of cancer-site specific studies, and most participants were non-Hispanic white females. CONCLUSION: The scoping review identified 5 themes: (1) inconsistency in defining mindfulness; (2) differences in measuring mindfulness; (3) underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities; (4) underrepresentation of males and cancer sites other than breast; and (5) the lack of behavioral theory in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the MBI.

Self-sampling tools to increase cancer screening among underserved patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening can reduce cancer mortality, but uptake is suboptimal and characterized by disparities. Home-based self-sampling can facilitate screening for colorectal cancer (with stool tests, eg, fecal immunochemical tests) and for cervical cancer (with self-collected human papillomavirus tests), especially among patients who face barriers to accessing health care. Additional data are needed on feasibility and potential effects of self-sampling tools for cancer screening among underserved patients. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with patients (female, ages 50-65 years, out of date with colorectal and cervical cancer screening) recruited from federally qualified health centers in rural and racially segregated counties in Pennsylvania. Participants in the standard-of-care arm (n = 24) received screening reminder letters. Participants in the self-sampling arm (n = 24) received self-sampling tools for fecal immunochemical tests and human papillomavirus testing. We assessed uptake of screening (10-week follow-up), self-sampling screening outcomes, and psychosocial variables. Analyses used Fisher exact tests to assess the effect of study arm on outcomes. RESULTS: Cancer screening was higher in the self-sampling arm than the standard-of-care arm (colorectal: 75% vs 13%, respectively, odds ratio = 31.32, 95% confidence interval = 5.20 to 289.33; cervical: 79% vs 8%, odds ratio = 72.03, 95% confidence interval = 9.15 to 1141.41). Among participants who returned the self-sampling tools, the prevalence of abnormal findings was 24% for colorectal and 18% for cervical cancer screening. Cancer screening knowledge was positively associated with uptake (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Self-sampling tools can increase colorectal and cervical cancer screening among unscreened, underserved patients. Increasing the use of self-sampling tools can improve primary care and cancer detection among underserved patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: STUDY00015480.

Video brochures in a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach program provide cancer screening information in a user-friendly format for rural Appalachian community members.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for average-risk adults, yet many adults are not up-to-date with screening. One recommended CRC screening approach is the annual completion of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, usually, fewer than half of mailed FIT tests are returned. METHODS: To address barriers to FIT return, a video brochure was developed providing targeted CRC screening information and step-by-step FIT instructions as a component in a mailed FIT program. This pilot study occurred in 2021-2022 and partnered with a federally qualified health center in Appalachian Ohio to send a FIT to patients who were 50-64 years old, of average risk, and not up-to-date on CRC screening. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups that differed on materials sent with the FIT: usual care (manufacturer's instructions), a video brochure (video instructions, disposable gloves, disposable stool collection device), or an audio brochure (audio instructions, disposable gloves, disposable stool collection device). FINDINGS: Overall, 16 of 94 patients (17%) returned the FIT, and return was higher among those sent the video brochure (28%) compared to the other 2 groups (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.02, 9.2; P = .046). Two patients had positive tests and were referred for colonoscopy. Patients sent the video brochure reported the content was important, relevant, and made them think about completing the FIT. CONCLUSIONS: Using a video brochure to provide understandable information in a mailed FIT kit is a promising strategy to improve CRC screening outreach programs in rural regions.

Views about vaccines and how views changed during the COVID-19 pandemic among a national sample of young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.

We examined perceptions of vaccines and changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. From 2019 to 2021, a national sample of young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men completed an open-ended survey item about vaccine perceptions. Analyses identified themes and polarity (negative, neutral, or positive) within responses and determined temporal changes across phases of the pandemic ("pre-pandemic," "pandemic," "initial vaccine availability," or "widespread vaccine availability"). Themes included health benefits of vaccines (53.9%), fear of shots (23.7%), COVID-19 (10.3%), vaccines being safe (5.6%), and vaccine hesitancy/misinformation (5.5%). Temporal changes existed for multiple themes (p < .05). Overall, 53.0% of responses were positive, 31.2% were negative, and 15.8% were neutral. Compared to the pre-pandemic phase, polarity was less positive for the widespread vaccine availability phase (odds ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.96). The findings provide insight into how vaccine perceptions change in concert with a public health emergency.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention. METHODS: Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling. CONCLUSION: If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia: protocol for a group randomized, delayed intervention trial.

Appalachian regions of Kentucky and Ohio are hotspots for colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in the USA. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality; however, screening uptake is needed, especially in these underserved geographic areas. Implementation science offers strategies to address this challenge. The aim of the current study was to conduct multi-site, transdisciplinary research to evaluate and improve CRC screening processes using implementation science strategies. The study consists of two phases (Planning and Implementation). In the Planning Phase, a multilevel assessment of 12 health centers (HC) (one HC from each of the 12 Appalachian counties) was conducted by interviewing key informants, creating community profiles, identifying HC and community champions, and performing HC data inventories. Two designated pilot HCs chose CRC evidence-based interventions to adapt and implement at each level (i.e., patient, provider, HC, and community) with evaluation relative to two matched control HCs. During the Implementation Phase, study staff will repeat the rollout process in HC and community settings in a randomized, staggered fashion in the remaining eight counties/HCs. Evaluation will include analyses of electronic health record data and provider and county surveys. Rural HCs have been reluctant to participate in research because of concerns about capacity; however, this project should demonstrate that research does not need to be burdensome and can adapt to local needs and HC abilities. If effective, this approach could be disseminated to HC and community partners throughout Appalachia to encourage the uptake of effective interventions to reduce the burden of CRC.

We conducted a multi-site study to evaluate and improve CRC screening processes using implementation science strategies at multiple levels including the patient, provider, health center, and community. Our goals were to increase rates of guideline-recommended CRC screening, follow-up, and referral-to-care in an Appalachian, medically underserved population.

Efficacy of the Outsmart HPV Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase HPV Vaccination among Young Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men.

BACKGROUND: Routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for young adults, yet many young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (YGBMSM) remain unvaccinated. We report the efficacy of Outsmart HPV, a web-based HPV vaccination intervention for YGBMSM. METHODS: From 2019 to 2021, we recruited YGBMSM in the United States who were ages 18-25 and unvaccinated against HPV (n = 1,227). Participants were randomized to receive either: (i) Outsmart HPV content online and monthly interactive text reminders (interactive group); (ii) Outsmart HPV content online and monthly unidirectional text reminders (unidirectional group); or (iii) standard information online about HPV vaccine (control group). Regression models compared study groups on HPV vaccination outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% of participants reported initiating the HPV vaccine series and 7% reported series completion. Initiation was more common among participants in the interactive group compared with the control group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.47, 98.3% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-2.11]. Completion was more common among participants in both the interactive group (OR = 3.70, 98.3% CI: 1.75-7.83) and unidirectional group (OR = 2.26, 98.3% CI: 1.02-5.00) compared with the control group. Participants who received Outsmart HPV content reported higher levels of satisfaction with online content compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Outsmart HPV is an efficacious and acceptable HPV vaccination intervention for YGBMSM. Future efforts are needed to determine how to optimize the intervention and disseminate it to settings that provide services to YGBMSM. IMPACT: Outsmart HPV is a promising tool for increasing HPV vaccination among YGBMSM with the potential for wide dissemination.

Framing of national HPV vaccine recommendations and willingness to recommend at ages 9-10.

Proactive HPV vaccination at age 9 better prevents infection and improves vaccine series completion. Because national organizations recommend starting the vaccine at different ages, we sought to understand the impact of these recommendation frames. In 2022, we surveyed 2,527 US clinical staff (45% physicians) who provide HPV vaccine for children. We randomized respondents to one of three frames based on HPV vaccine recommendations of national organizations or a no-recommendation control, and assessed willingness to recommend HPV vaccine for children ages 9-10. Respondents also reported perceived benefits of HPV vaccination at ages 9 or 12. Recommending HPV vaccination "at ages 11-12" led to lower willingness to vaccinate at ages 9-10 than control (37% vs. 54%, p < .05). Recommending vaccination "at ages 9-12" led to similar willingness as control. However, "starting at age 9" led to higher willingness than control (63% vs. 54%, p < .05). Results were similar across respondents' training, specialty, or years in practice, or their clinic's rurality or healthcare system membership. More common benefits of recommending at age 9 than 12 were avoiding the topic of sex (24% vs. 10%, OR = 2.78, 95%CI: 2.23, 3.48) and completing the vaccine series before age 13 (56% vs. 47%, OR = 1.44, 95%CI: 1.23, 1.68). Less common benefits for age 9 were having parents ready to talk about HPV vaccine and agreeing to vaccination (both p < .05). An effective way to encourage proactive HPV vaccination is to say that it starts at age 9. Aligning national recommendations to start at age 9 can promote timely vaccination.

Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected general vaccination hesitancy? Findings from a national study.

Extensive media coverage and potential controversy about COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic may have affected people's general attitudes towards vaccination. We sought to describe key psychological antecedents related to vaccination and assess how these vary temporally in relationship to the pandemic and availability of COVID-19 vaccination. As part of an ongoing online study, we recruited a national (U.S.) sample of young gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (N = 1,227) between October 2019 and June 2021, and assessed the "4Cs" (antecedents of vaccination; range = 1-5). Overall, men had high levels of confidence (trust in vaccines; M = 4.13), calculation (deliberation; M = 3.97) and collective responsibility (protecting others; M = 4.05) and low levels of complacency (not perceiving disease risk; M = 1.72). In multivariable analyses, confidence and collective responsibility varied relative to the pandemic phase/vaccine availability, reflecting greater hesitancy during later stages of the pandemic. Antecedents also varied by demographic characteristics. Findings suggest negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on key antecedents of general vaccination and identify potential targets for interventions.

"What does it matter?" Young sexual minority men discuss their conversations with sexual partners about HPV vaccination.

Objective: Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage is suboptimal, especially among males. Social networks influence young adults' health behaviors and could be leveraged to promote vaccination. We sought to describe how young sexual minority men communicate about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination with their sexual partners. Participants: National (U.S.) sample of sexual minority men ages 18-26 (n = 42) from January 2019. Methods: We conducted four online focus groups and identified salient themes using inductive content analysis. Results: Across groups, participants described that HPV vaccination is not a focus of their conversations with sexual partners. Other key themes related to HPV vaccine communication included: varying discissions based on relationship type, and valuing conversations with partners about safer sex. Conclusions: Findings provide novel insight into how young sexual minority men communicate with their sexual partners about HPV vaccination and identify potential areas for interventions to promote communication. Future research is needed to investigate associations between partner communication and HPV vaccine uptake.

Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention that replaces conventional pre-test genetic counseling for women at elevated breast cancer risk. METHODS: We used an iterative process that was guided by health behavior theory and feedback from multiple stakeholder groups including: 1) content input from genetic experts; 2) study team input; 3) review of video storyboards, video example, study logo, recruitment materials, post-test patient preference counseling survey, and additional study surveys; 4) video series development; and 5) intervention review and finalization of study-related materials. RESULTS: The intervention is patient-centered providing convenience and an opportunity for an individual's preferences for post-test counseling delivery. The intervention's efficacy is being determined in a randomized controlled trial compared to conventional genetic counseling for adherence to recommended guidelines and changes in knowledge, perception of breast cancer risk, breast cancer-specific worry, and satisfaction with counseling. CONCLUSION: If efficacious, the intervention may improve the delivery of the genetic testing and counseling process, inform best practices, and reduce the genetic counseling workforce burden. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The developed intervention has the potential to improve the genetic testing and counseling experience for women at elevated risk for breast cancer, inform best practices, and reduce genetic counseling workforce burden.

Effects of a web-based HPV vaccination intervention on cognitive outcomes among young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.

Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs are important antecedents to HPV vaccination, yet remain suboptimal among young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (YGBMSM). We report the effects of a theoretically-informed, web-based HPV vaccination intervention on these cognitive outcomes. From 2019-2021, we recruited a national sample of YGBMSM ages 18-25 in the United States who were unvaccinated against HPV (n = 1,227). Participants received either standard HPV vaccination information online (control) or population-targeted, individually-tailored content online (Outsmart HPV intervention). Mixed effects models determined if pre-post changes in cognitive outcomes differed between study groups. For five of seven knowledge items about HPV, there were larger pre-post increases among the intervention group than the control group in the percentage of participants who provided correct responses (all statistically significant at p = .05 after Holm's correction). There were also larger pre-post improvements among the intervention group than the control group for most attitudes and beliefs examined, including response efficacy of HPV vaccine (pre-post increases in means: 0.57 vs. 0.38); self-efficacy for the HPV vaccination process (pre-post increases in means: 0.23 vs. 0.10); and intention to get HPV vaccine (pre-post increases in means: 0.70 vs. 0.28) (all statistically significant at p = .05 after Holm's correction). Outsmart HPV is a promising tool for improving key cognitive antecedents to HPV vaccination among YGBMSM, supporting the use of theoretically-informed interventions to affect such outcomes. If efficacious in increasing HPV vaccine uptake in future analyses, this intervention could be utilized in clinical and other healthcare settings that provide services to YGBMSM.

Perspectives on self-sampling for cancer screening among rural and urban women: Multilevel factors related to acceptability.

PURPOSE: Self-sampling tests may be used to overcome barriers to screening that are more prevalent in rural populations compared to urban populations. This study aims to qualitatively examine the attitudes toward established and novel self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer among women, comparing themes from rural versus urban areas. METHODS: We recruited women (ages 45-65) from 28 counties in Pennsylvania. Four focus groups were conducted with women from metropolitan counties, and 7 focus groups were conducted with women from nonmetropolitan counties. A brief survey was conducted prior to the focus group regarding general health and willingness to complete self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer. FINDINGS: We identified 3 themes about the potential for self-sampling for cancer screening: advantages and disadvantages of self-sampling compared to traditional testing, impact of self-sampling on patient interactions with their health care providers/clinics, and implications for improving/worsening access to quality health care services. We detected differences in responses from rural versus urban participants in the potential impact of self-sampling for cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that influence the feasibility of implementing self-sampling for cancer screening in routine clinical practice. Rural participants face unique barriers to cancer screening across all levels. These findings can be used to guide interventions aimed at increasing the use of self-sampling methods.

Multilevel Associations with Cancer Screening Among Women in Rural, Segregated Communities Within the Northeastern USA: a Mixed-Methods Study.

We recruited women (primarily non-Hispanic White) from 14 rural, segregated counties in a Northeastern US state for an explanatory sequential study: 100 women (ages 50-65 years) completed a survey, and 16 women participated in focus groups. We sought to identify personal (e.g., healthcare mistrust) and environmental (e.g., travel time to healthcare providers) factors related to colorectal and cervical cancer screening. Quantitatively, 89% of participants were up-to-date for cervical screening, and 65% for colorectal screening. Factors interacted such that compounding barriers were associated with lower odds of screening (e.g., insurance status and healthcare mistrust: interaction p = .02 for cervical; interaction p = .05 for colorectal). Qualitatively, three themes emerged regarding barriers to screening: privacy concerns, logistical barriers, and lack of trust in adequacy of healthcare services. While cancer screening was common in rural, segregated counties, women who reported both environmental and personal barriers to screening had lower uptake. Future interventions to promote screening can target these barriers.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About COVID-19 Among Adults in the United States.

Background: Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs are cognitive outcomes that serve as key determinants of engaging in health behaviors, likely including vaccination and other mitigation behaviors against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Studies have begun examining people's knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about COVID-19, but little is known about how these cognitive outcomes differ across racial/ethnic groups. Methods: An online survey was conducted with a convenience sample of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020, about 2 months after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Multivariable regression models were used to examine differences in knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about COVID-19 across racial/ethnic groups (non-Latinx white, non-Latinx black, non-Latinx of another race, or Latinx). Results: Knowledge tended to be lower among non-Latinx blacks and Latinx participants compared to non-Latinx whites. For example, fewer non-Latinx blacks responded correctly that COVID-19 is not caused by the same virus that causes influenza (adjusted OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90), and Latinx participants were less likely to respond correctly that people with COVID-19 do not always show symptoms of being sick (adjusted OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45-0.87). For beliefs and attitudes, non-Latinx blacks (ß = -0.09) and non-Latinx participants of another race (ß = -0.05) reported lower perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 in the future compared to non-Latinx whites, while Latinx participants reported greater perceived stigma of COVID-19 (ß = 0.08) (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Several differences in cognitive outcomes about COVID-19 exist across racial/ethnic groups, including gaps in knowledge and varied beliefs and attitudes. Results identify modifiable targets for public health programs promoting vaccination and other mitigation behaviors against COVID-19.

Cervical cancer screening among sexual minority women: findings from a national survey.

PURPOSE: Sexual minority women (SMW; lesbian, bisexual, and other women who have sex with women) are at risk for cervical cancer but less likely than non-SMW to receive regular cervical cancer screening (Pap- and/or HPV-testing). We examined factors contributing to receipt of guideline-based cervical cancer screening among SMW. METHODS: During October 2019, we conducted an online survey of self-identified SMW aged 21-45 years living in the United States (n = 435). We estimated risk differences (RD) in women's likelihood of being within current cervical cancer screening guidelines by sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 75% of respondents were within current screening guidelines. Adjusting for other factors, SMW were more likely to be within guidelines if they were insured (aRD 0.26, 95% CI 0.13, 0.39), had a partner (aRD 0.18, 95% CI 0.09, 0.28), and were older (aRD 0.12, 95% CI 0.04, 0.20). Overall, the most common reasons for not being screened recently were lack of insurance/cost (42%) and perceiving it was unnecessary (28%). CONCLUSION: Many SMW are not being screened for cervical cancer according to guidelines. Findings can inform efforts to improve screening among this population.

Development of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in Appalachia.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in Appalachian regions of the United States than in non-Appalachian regions. Given the availability of various screening modalities, there is critical need for culturally relevant interventions addressing multiple socioecological levels to reduce the regional CRC burden. In this report, we describe the development and baseline findings from year 1 of "Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia," a 5-year, National Cancer Institute Cancer MoonshotSM-funded multilevel intervention (MLI) project to increase screening in Appalachian Kentucky and Ohio primary care clinics. METHODS: Project development was theory-driven and included the establishment of both an external Scientific Advisory Board and a Community Advisory Board to provide guidance in conducting formative activities in two Appalachian counties: one in Kentucky and one in Ohio. Activities included identifying and describing the study communities and primary care clinics, selecting appropriate evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and conducting a pilot test of MLI strategies addressing patient, provider, clinic, and community needs. RESULTS: Key informant interviews identified multiple barriers to CRC screening, including fear of screening, test results, and financial concerns (patient level); lack of time and competing priorities (provider level); lack of reminder or tracking systems and staff burden (clinic level); and cultural issues, societal norms, and transportation (community level). With this information, investigators then offered clinics a menu of EBIs and strategies to address barriers at each level. Clinics selected individually tailored MLIs, including improvement of patient education materials, provision of provider education (resulting in increased knowledge, p = .003), enhancement of electronic health record (EHR) systems and development of clinic screening protocols, and implementation of community CRC awareness events, all of which promoted stool-based screening (i.e., FIT or FIT-DNA). Variability among clinics, including differences in EHR systems, was the most salient barrier to EBI implementation, particularly in terms of tracking follow-up of positive screening results, whereas the development of clinic-wide screening protocols was found to promote fidelity to EBI components. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from year 1 included increased recognition of variability among the clinics and how they function, appreciation for clinic staff and provider workload, and development of strategies to utilize EHR systems. These findings necessitated a modification of study design for subsequent years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial NCT04427527 is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov and was registered on June 11, 2020.

A Teachable Moment: Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Companions Waiting for Outpatients Undergoing a Colonoscopy.

To determine colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and preferences for a future CRC screening educational intervention among adults (companions) waiting for outpatients undergoing a colonoscopy. We approached 384 companions at three endoscopy centers associated with one healthcare system to complete a survey from March to July 2017. The survey assessed CRC and CRC screening knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and preferences for a future CRC screening educational intervention. There were 164 companions at average risk for CRC that completed a self-administered survey. Among average-risk companions, 23% were not within screening guidelines. Additionally, 74% of those not within guidelines reported that they had never completed a CRC screening test. The most frequently reported barriers to CRC screening were the perception of not needing screening because they were asymptomatic and lack of a provider recommendation for screening. Companions suggested that a future CRC screening intervention include a brochure and/or a brief video, featuring men and women from different races/ethnicities, a CRC survivor, and a healthcare professional. Almost one-fourth of average-risk companions waiting at endoscopy centers were not within CRC screening guidelines, providing a teachable moment to recruit companions to participate in an educational intervention to encourage screening. Companions provided suggestions (e.g., content and channel) for a future intervention to promote CRC screening in this population.

Provider recommendation for HPV vaccination across Hispanic/Latinx subgroups in the United States.

Healthcare provider recommendation is a key predictor of HPV vaccination among adolescents, yet little is known about how parents' receipt of a provider recommendation differs across Hispanic/Latinx subgroups in the United States. We analyzed data from the 2012-2016 National Immunization Survey - Teen on Hispanic/Latinx adolescent ages 13-17 (n = 16,335). Analyses used weighted logistic regression models. Overall, 62.6% of parents of Hispanic/Latinx females and 46.4% of parents of Hispanic/Latinx males reported that they had received a provider recommendation for HPV vaccination. Among parents of females, receipt of a provider recommendation ranged from 55.0% among Central Americans to 73.3% among parents of Puerto Ricans. Among parents of males, the range was from 44.5% among Mexicans and multi-subgroup males to 53.4% among Cubans. There were no differences across Hispanic/Latinx subgroups in adjusted models among either males or females (all p > .05). Among parents of females, provider recommendation was less common among those whose preferred language was Spanish for Central Americans and South Americans (both p < .05). Efforts are needed to improve provider communication about and recommendations for HPV vaccination among the Hispanic/Latinx population and to ensure the availability of language assistance services for individuals with limited English proficiency.

Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine among adults in the United States: How many people would get vaccinated?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Several prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19 are currently in development, yet little is known about people's acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of adults ages 18 and older in the United States (n = 2,006) in May 2020. Multivariable relative risk regression identified correlates of participants' willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., vaccine acceptability). RESULTS: Overall, 69% of participants were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they thought their healthcare provider would recommend vaccination (RR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49-2.02) or if they were moderate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.16) or liberal (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.22) in their political leaning. Participants were also more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived likelihood getting a COVID-19 infection in the future (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09), perceived severity of COVID-19 infection (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11), or perceived effectiveness of a COVID-19 vaccine (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40-1.52). Participants were less likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they were non-Latinx black (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90) or reported a higher level of perceived potential vaccine harms (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Many adults are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, though acceptability should be monitored as vaccine development continues. Our findings can help guide future efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptability (and uptake if a vaccine becomes available).