Racial differences in symptom management experiences during breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Racial disparities in cancer treatment-related symptom burden are well documented and linked to worse treatment outcomes. Yet, little is known about racial differences in patients' treatment-related symptom management experiences. Such understanding can help identify modifiable drivers of symptom burden inequities. As part of the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) study, we examined racial differences in symptom management experiences among Black and White breast cancer survivors (BCS). METHODS: We conducted six focus groups (n = 3 Black BCS groups; n = 3 White BCS groups) with 22 stages I-IV BCS at two cancer centers. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Based on key community-based participatory research principles, our community/academic/medical partner team facilitated focus groups and conducted qualitative analyses. RESULTS: All BCS described positive symptom management experiences, including clinician attentiveness to symptom concerns and clinician recommendations for pre-emptively managing symptoms. Black BCS commonly reported having to advocate for themselves to get information about treatment-related symptoms, and indicated dissatisfaction regarding clinicians' failure to disclose potential treatment-related symptoms or provide medications to address symptoms. White BCS often described dissatisfaction regarding inadequate information on symptom origins and clinicians' failure to offer reassurance. CONCLUSIONS: This study elucidates opportunities for future research aimed at improving equity for cancer treatment-related symptom management. For Black women, warnings about anticipated symptoms and treatment for ongoing symptoms were particular areas of concern. Routine symptom assessment for all women, as well as clinicians' management of symptoms for racially diverse cancer patients, need to be more thoroughly studied and addressed.

Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative and equitable approach to research inquiry; however, the process of establishing and maintaining CBPR partnerships can be challenging. There is an ongoing need for innovative strategies that foster partnership development and long-term sustainability. In 2010, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill developed a CBPR charrette model to facilitate stakeholder engagement in translational research. OBJECTIVE: To describe how the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) Study leveraged the CBPR charrette process to develop and strengthen its CBPR partnership and successfully implement research objectives. METHODS: Fourteen CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners participated in the CBPR charrette. Two co-facilitators guided the charrette application process and in-person discussion of partnership strengths, needs, and challenges. Community experts (CEs) and academic experts (AEs) with extensive experience in CBPR and health disparities provided technical assistance and recommendations during the in-person charrette. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the CHAMPS partnership benefited significantly from the charrette process. Specifically, the charrette process engendered greater transparency, accountability, and trust among CHAMPS partners by encouraging collective negotiation of project goals and implementation, roles and responsibilities, and compensation and communication structures. The process also allowed for the exploration of newly identified challenges and potential solutions with support from CEs and AEs. Furthermore, the charrette also functioned as a catalyst for capacity building among CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners. Future studies should compare the impact of the CBPR charrette, relative to other approaches, on partnership development and process evaluation outcomes.