Health Equity and Colorectal Cancer Awareness: a Community Health Educator Initiative.

Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality persist in rural and underserved communities. Our Community Outreach and Engagement (COE) activities are grounded in a bi-directional Community-to-Bench model in which the National Outreach Network Community Health Educator (NON CHE) Screen to Save (S2S) initiative was implemented. In this study, we assessed the impact of the NON CHE S2S in rural and underserved communities. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used to examine the role of the NON CHE S2S on CRC knowledge and CRC screening intent. Data included demographics, current CRC knowledge, awareness, and future CRC health plans. A multivariate linear regression was fit to survey scores for CRC knowledge. The NON CHE S2S engaged 441 participants with 170 surveys completed. The difference in participants' CRC knowledge before and after the NON CHE S2S intervention had an overall mean of 0.92 with a standard deviation of 2.56. At baseline, White participants had significantly higher CRC knowledge scores, correctly answering 1.94 (p = 0.007) more questions on average than Black participants. After the NON CHE S2S intervention, this difference was not statistically significant. Greater than 95% of participants agreed that the NON CHE S2S sessions impacted their intent to get screened for CRC. Equity of access to health information and the health care system can be achieved with precision public health strategies. The COE bi-directional Community-to-Bench model facilitated community connections through the NON CHE and increased awareness of CRC risk reduction, screening, treatment, and research. The NON CHE combined with S2S is a powerful tool to engage communities with the greatest health care needs and positively impact an individual's intent to "get screened" for CRC.

Reaching Hard to Reach Populations with Hard to Communicate Messages: Efficacy of a Breast Health Research Champion Training Program.

A Breast Health Research Champion training program was a developed targeting self-identified community breast health advocates from a predominant African-American community with a significant breast cancer mortality disparity. Twelve individuals completed the program that provided training in breast cancer risk and screening, breast cancer research, biospecimen in cancer research, and human research subject protection. The training emphasized four key messages to be disseminated to the community. Trainees hosted a minimum of two social chats with individuals from their social networks and functioned as community researchers, acquiring consent and gathering follow-up data from attendees. Trainees reached 199 individuals from their social networks, and chats were diverse in the venue selected, mode of message transmission, and the audience reached. Post/pre questionnaire data from attendees at the chats showed significant improvement in knowledge, attitudes, and intended behaviors as it relates to breast cancer screening, clinical research, and biospecimen in research. Forty percent of attendees provided 4-week follow-up information. Of respondents eligible for mammography, 38 % had taken action to be screened, and 86 % of respondents had spoken about the information to someone else in their social network. Trainees expressed feelings of empowerment after completing the project, "feeling like the expert," and all trainees were surprised at the enthusiastic response from attendees of their chats. Trainees continued to disseminate the information learned from the training program during the 6 months following the training, reaching an additional 786 individuals in the community.

Opportunities to reduce cancer barriers: community town halls and provider focus groups.

This paper presents the findings from town hall meetings held with community residents and focus groups with health care providers. A total of five town halls (N = 139) were conducted. Four were conducted in English and a fifth was conducted in Spanish to obtain the input of the local Hispanic community. Surveys were provided to town hall participants to assess their perceptions of cancer and screening as well as their cancer screening behaviors. Participants were asked questions designed to determine local gaps and needs in health and cancer care, and their attitudes regarding breast cancer resources, education, treatment, and clinical trials. Additionally, four focus groups (N = 45) were held with a wide range of providers to obtain their perspectives on barriers to breast cancer screening, local cancer prevention and care, and clinical trials. Results indicate gaps in local resources and support services, particularly in terms of education and integrated care.

Perceptions of participation in a phase I, II, or III clinical trial among African American patients with cancer: what do refusers say?

BACKGROUND: Less than 5% of all adult patients with cancer enter clinical trials. These rates are lower in racial/ethnic minority populations, negatively affecting the generalizability and validity of trial results. Many studies have identified barriers to minority enrolment, yet few have gathered in-depth insights into minority patients' reasons for trial refusal. We aimed to (1) explore trial refusal reasons in a sample of African American (AA) patients with cancer who declined trial participation and (2) gather patients' perceptions of the potential benefit of an array of decision support tools. METHODS: Participants were 22 consecutively recruited AA patients with cancer who had declined participation in a therapeutic clinical trial. Within 3 months of the trial refusal decision, participants completed an audio-recorded semistructured interview that asked about demographic and disease information, psychosocial factors, and patients' experience with clinical trials. Two months later, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their trial decision. RESULTS: Few patients received positive recommendations about joining a trial. Patients gave multiple refusal reasons. Only two participants refused to join a clinical trial as a result of issues of mistrust. Most participants refused as a result of fears of additional burdens and adverse effects. Many patients and family members misunderstood trial information. Family members mostly recommended against trial participation. Most patients felt that question prompt lists or decision aids would assist information seeking and decision making. CONCLUSION: Low rates of physician recommendations for clinical trial participation of AA patients with cancer warrant further investigation. Interventions to reduce misunderstandings and aid decision making, both within and external to the clinical interaction, need to target both patients and family members.