Incidence Rates and Outcomes of Nodular and Superficial Spreading Melanoma along the Rural-Urban Continuum in Kentucky and Their Relationship to Provider Care Access.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared incidence rates, stage at presentation, and cause-specific mortality of nodular and superficial spreading melanoma along the rural-urban continuum in Kentucky. We compared resulting patterns in our data with sample demographic and other potential factors, including population by county and primary care provider rate. METHODS: Retrospective patient data were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2010 through 2017. These data were supplemented by environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic data derived from publicly accessible databases. Correlation and χ2 analyses were used to test for significant differences in outcome variables by US Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC) categories and other potential predictor variables. RESULTS: Incidence rates by Kentucky county were not associated with RUCC or population; likewise, there was no relationship between stage at presentation and RUCC category. There was, however, a highly significant association between cause-specific mortality and RUCC; patients from rural areas were significantly more likely to die from melanoma than those in urban areas. This overall difference was due to differences in mortality for superficial spreading melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a disparity in patients' ability or tendency to access primary care and/or specialist providers postdiagnosis may be critical factors in determining the ultimate outcome of a melanoma diagnosis. Further studies should explore the availability of dermatologists and/or treatment options for melanoma in rural areas. Our data also provide additional support for inclusion of melanoma subtype in the American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines.

From trial to practice: incidence and severity of COVID-19 vaccine side effects in a medically at-risk and vaccine-hesitant community.

BACKGROUND: The rapid authorization and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States demonstrated a need for additional data on vaccine side effects, both to provide insight into the range and severity of side effects that might be expected in medically-diverse populations as well as to inform decision-making and combat vaccine hesitancy going forward. Here we report the results of a survey of 4825 individuals from southcentral Kentucky who received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021. As new versions of the vaccine are rolled-out, local initiatives such as this may offer a means to combat vaccine hesitancy in reference to COVID-19, but are also important as we face new viral threats that will necessitate a rapid vaccine rollout, and to combat a growing public distrust of vaccines in general. METHODS: Individuals that received two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021 were sent a survey, created by the research team. Respondents were asked to rate the incidence and severity of 15 potential side effects and two related outcomes following each of their two doses of the vaccine. All statistical analyses were carried out using SYSTAT, version 13. The data were analyzed utilizing a range of statistical tests, including chi-square tests of association, Cohen's h, Kruskal-Wallis test one-way nonparametric ANOVA, least-squares regression, and Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Significance was assessed using Bonferroni-adjusted criteria within families of tests. RESULTS: In general, the pattern and severity in side effects was similar to both clinical trial data as well as other published studies. Responses to the mRNA-1273 vaccine were more severe than to BNT162b2, though all were generally in the mild to moderate category. Individuals who reported having previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported stronger responses following the first dose of either vaccine relative to COVID-naïve individuals. The reported severity to the COVID-19 vaccine was positively correlated with self-reported responses to other vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings allow broad-scale estimates of the nature and severity of reactions one might expect following vaccination within a clinically-diverse community, and provide a context for addressing vaccine hesitancy in communities such as ours, where locally-generated data and communication may be more influential than national trends and statistics in convincing individuals to become vaccinated. Further, we argue this community-based approach could be important in the future in three key ways: 1) as new boosters and modified vaccines re-volatilize vaccine hesitancy, 2) as new vaccines receive similar testing and rapid authorization, and 3) to combat vaccine hesitancy in other arenas (e.g., annual vaccines, childhood vaccines).

The best laid plans: community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) group capacity and planning success.

As community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) increases in popularity, the question of the capacity of such groups to successfully manage natural resources becomes increasingly relevant. However, few studies have quantifiably analyzed how the amount or type of capacity in a CBNRM organization directly affects the outputs or the environmental outcomes produced. This paucity of research exists in part due to the diversity of indicators for CBNRM group capacity, as well as the ensuing debate over how to best define and measure success in CBNRM initiatives. Although concrete outputs vary widely, many efforts center on creating natural resource management plans (RMPs). The primary objective of our research was to explore the link between capacity and RMP implementation success, as perceived by practitioners among CBNRM groups across Illinois. A short online survey was constructed, utilizing findings from focus groups in combination with an extensive literature review, to measure CBNRM participants' (n = 190) perceptions of 10 key capacity indicators and RMP implementation success. Results show that capacity perceptions varied significantly among respondents in low, moderate, and high RMP implementation success groups, and that group capacity was predictive of the degree of perceived RMP implementation success. Further, our findings suggest that bonding social capital and outreach are crucial in predicting low versus moderate RMP success, while leadership, motivation, and vision best distinguish the moderately successful and highly successful groups.