Why Wait Until Our Community Gets Cancer?: Exploring CRC Screening Barriers and Facilitators in the Spanish-Speaking Community in North Carolina.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death among Hispanics in the United States. Despite the benefits of CRC screening, many Hispanics are not being screened. Using a combined methodology of focus groups and discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, the objectives for this research were as follows: (1) to improve understanding of preferences regarding potential CRC screening program characteristics, and (2) to improve understanding of the barriers and facilitators around CRC screening with the Hispanic, immigrant community in North Carolina. Four gender-stratified focus groups were conducted and DCE surveys were administered to 38 Spanish-speaking individuals across four counties in North Carolina. In-depth content analysis was used to examine the focus group data; descriptive analyses and mean attribute importance scores for cost of screening and follow-up care, travel time, and test options were calculated from DCE data. Data analyses showed that this population has a strong interest in CRC screening but experience barriers such as lack of access to resources, cost uncertainty, and stigma. Some of these barriers are unique to their cultural experiences in the United States, such as an expressed lack of tailored CRC information. Based on the DCE, cost variables were more important than testing options or travel time. This study suggests that Hispanics may have a general awareness of and interest in CRC screening, but multiple barriers prevent them from getting screened. Special attention should be given to designing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to improve access to healthcare resources, insurance, and associated costs among Hispanics.

Bridging Research, Practice, and Policy: The "Evidence Academy" Conference Model.

Innovative models to facilitate more rapid uptake of research findings into practice are urgently needed. Community members who engage in research can accelerate this process by acting as adoption agents. We implemented an Evidence Academy conference model bringing together researchers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers across North Carolina to discuss high-impact, life-saving study results. The overall goal is to develop dissemination and implementation strategies for translating evidence into practice and policy. Each 1-day, single-theme, regional meeting focuses on a leading community-identified health priority. The model capitalizes on the power of diverse local networks to encourage broad, common awareness of new research findings. Furthermore, it emphasizes critical reflection and active group discussion on how to incorporate new evidence within and across organizations, health care systems, and communities. During the concluding session, participants are asked to articulate action plans relevant to their individual interests, work setting, or area of expertise.

Using a discrete choice experiment to inform the design of programs to promote colon cancer screening for vulnerable populations in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations. Effective intervention programs are needed to increase screening rates. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to learn about how vulnerable individuals in North Carolina value different aspects of CRC screening programs. METHODS: We enrolled English-speaking adults ages 50-75 at average risk of CRC from rural North Carolina communities with low rates of CRC screening, targeting those with public or no insurance and low incomes. Participants received basic information about CRC screening and potential program features, then completed a 16 task DCE and survey questions that examined preferences for four attributes of screening programs: testing options available; travel time required; money paid for screening or rewards for completing screening; and the portion of the cost of follow-up care paid out of pocket. We used Hierarchical Bayesian methods to calculate individual-level utilities for the 4 attributes' levels and individual-level attribute importance scores. For each individual, the attribute with the highest importance score was considered the most important attribute. Individual utilities were then aggregated to produce mean utilities for each attribute. We also compared DCE-based results with those from direct questions in a post-DCE survey. RESULTS: We enrolled 150 adults. Mean age was 57.8 (range 50-74); 55% were women; 76% White and 19% African-American; 87% annual household income under $30,000; and 51% were uninsured. Individuals preferred shorter travel; rewards or small copayments compared with large copayments; programs that included stool testing as an option; and greater coverage of follow-up costs. Follow-up cost coverage was most frequently found to be the most important attribute from the DCE (47%); followed by test reward/copayment (33%). From the survey, proportion of follow-up costs paid was most frequently cited as most important (42% of participants), followed by testing options (32%). There was moderate agreement (45%) in attribute importance between the DCE and the single question in the post-DCE survey. CONCLUSIONS: Screening test copayments and follow-up care coverage costs are important program characteristics in this vulnerable, rural population.