'It's like you don't have a roadmap really': using an antiracism framework to analyze patients' encounters in the cancer system.

Background: Cancer patients can experience healthcare system-related challenges during the course of their treatment. Yet, little is known about how these challenges might affect the quality and completion of cancer treatment for all patients, and particularly for patients of color. Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is a multi-component, community-based participatory research intervention to reduce Black-White cancer care disparities. This formative work aimed to understand patients' cancer center experiences, explore racial differences in experiences, and inform systems-level interventions.Methods: Twenty-seven breast and lung cancer patients at two cancer centers participated in focus groups, grouped by race and cancer type. Participants were asked about what they found empowering and disempowering regarding their cancer care experiences. The community-guided analysis used a racial equity approach to identify racial differences in care experiences.Results: For Black and White patients, fear, uncertainty, and incomplete knowledge were disempowering; trust in providers and a sense of control were empowering. Although participants denied differential treatment due to race, analysis revealed implicit Black-White differences in care.Conclusions: Most of the challenges participants faced were related to lack of transparency, such that improvements in communication, particularly two-way communication could greatly improve patients' interaction with the system. Pathways for accountability can also be built into a system that allows patients to find solutions for their problems with the system itself. Participants' insights suggest the need for patient-centered, systems-level interventions to improve care experiences and reduce disparities.

The role of patient-physician relationship on health-related quality of life and pain in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and pain are important supportive cancer care outcomes. The patient-provider relationship, a modifiable care experience, has been linked to healthcare outcomes; however, less is known about associations between patient-provider relationship and supportive care outcomes in cancer patients. We examined the role of multiple aspects of the patient-provider relationship in explaining patterns of HRQOL and pain among breast and lung cancer patients. METHODS: Our analysis included 283 breast and lung cancer patients from two cancer centers. Clinical data and survey data on patient sociodemographic factors, physical and mental HRQOL, pain, and patient-physician relationship (i.e., doctor's respectfulness, time spent with doctors, patient involvement in decision-making, satisfaction with care, and following doctor's advice/treatment plan) were collected at baseline and during treatment. We estimated adjusted modified Poisson regression models to assess associations between patient-physician relationship factors and physical and mental HRQOL and pain. RESULTS: Compared with patients reporting suboptimal respect from doctors, patients reporting optimal respect were less likely to report below average physical HRQOL (adjusted risk ratio (ARR), 0.73; 95%CI, 0.62-0.86), below average mental HRQOL (ARR, 0.71; 95%CI, 0.54-0.93), and moderate-to-severe pain (ARR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.35-0.79). Patients reporting optimal involvement in care decision-making and patients who reported following their doctor's advice/treatment plan were less likely to report below average mental HRQOL than their respective counterparts (ARR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.50-0.83; ARR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.48-0.86). CONCLUSION: Multiple patient-physician relationship factors account for variations in HRQOL and pain in cancer patients. These findings provide insight into potential targets for improving the patient-provider relationship and supportive cancer care outcomes.

Racial Differences in the Influence of Health Care System Factors on Informal Support for Cancer Care Among Black and White Breast and Lung Cancer Survivors.

This retrospective, secondary qualitative analysis investigates whether health system factors influence social support among Black and white breast and lung cancer survivors and racial differences in support. These data come from race- and cancer-stratified focus groups (n = 6) and interviews (n = 2) to inform a randomized controlled trial utilizing antiracism and community-based participatory research approaches. Findings indicate social support was helpful for overcoming treatment-related challenges, including symptom management and patient-provider communication; racial differences in support needs and provision were noted. Resources within individual support networks reflect broader sociostructural factors. Reliance on family/friends to fill gaps in cancer care may exacerbate racial disparities.

The Other Side of Through: Young Breast Cancer Survivors' Spectrum of Sexual and Reproductive Health Needs.

The long-term reproductive health impact of cancer treatments is a concern for premenopausal women with a history of breast cancer. This study examined the unmet sexual and reproductive health needs of breast cancer survivors, as well as concordances and discordances in needs by childbearing status and race. We interviewed 17 women diagnosed with breast cancer between the ages of 18 and 45 years and living in North Carolina. To analyze these data, we used the Sort and Sift, Think and Shift© method, a multidimensional qualitative analysis approach. We learned that breast cancer survivors (a) received limited reproductive health information, (b) desired realistic expectations of conceiving postcancer, (c) struggled with adjusting to their altered physical appearance, and (d) had menopause symptoms that led to sexual health and quality of life issues. Breast cancer survivors are in need of and desire more education and resources to address their sexual and reproductive health concerns.

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.

Experiences of Latinos with limited English proficiency with patient registration systems and their interactions with clinic front office staff: an exploratory study to inform community-based translational research in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Health services research of Latinos with limited English proficiency (LEP) have largely focused on studying disparities related to patient-provider communication. Less is known about their non-provider interactions such as those with patient registration systems and clinic front office staff; these interactions precede the encounter with providers and may shape how comfortable patients feel about their overall health services experience. This study explored Latino patients with LEP experiences with, and expectations for, interactions with patient registration systems and front office staff. METHODS: We conducted 20 in-depth interviews with Latinos with LEP (≥ 18 years of age) who seek health services in the Piedmont Triad region, North Carolina. We analyzed participants' quotes and identified themes by using a constant comparison method. This research was conducted by a community-academic partnership; partners were engaged in study design, instrument development, recruitment, data analysis, and manuscript writing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis allowed us to identify the following recurring themes: 1) inconsistent registration of multiple surnames may contribute to patient misidentification errors and delays in receiving health care; 2) lack of Spanish language services in front office medical settings negatively affect care coordination and satisfaction with health care; and 3) perceived discrimination generates patients' mistrust in front office staff and discomfort with services. CONCLUSION: Latino patients in North Carolina experience health services barriers unique to their LEP background. Participants identified ways in which the lack of cultural and linguistic competence of front office staff negatively affect their experiences seeking health services. Healthcare organizations need to support their staff to encourage patient-centered principles.

Critical incident technique: an innovative participatory approach to examine and document racial disparities in breast cancer healthcare services.

Disproportionate and persistent inequities in quality of healthcare have been observed among persons of color in the United States. To understand and ultimately eliminate such inequities, several public health institutions have issued calls for innovative methods and approaches that examine determinants from the social, organizational and public policy contexts to inform the design of systems change interventions. The authors, including academic and community research partners in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) study, reflected together on the use and value of the critical incident technique (CIT) for exploring racial disparities in healthcare for women with breast cancer. Academic and community partners used initial large group discussion involving a large partnership of 35 academic and community researchers guided by principles of CBPR, followed by the efforts of a smaller interdisciplinary manuscript team of academic and community researchers to reflect, document summarize and translate this participatory research process, lessons learned and value added from using the CIT with principles of CBPR and Undoing Racism. The finding of this article is a discussion of the process, strengths and challenges of utilizing CIT with CBPR. The participation of community members at all levels of the research process including development, collection of the data and analysis of the data was enhanced by the CIT process. As the field of CBPR continues to mature, innovative processes which combine the expertise of community and academic partners can enhance the success of such partnerships. This report contributes to existing literature by illustrating a unique and participatory research application of CIT with principles of CBPR and Undoing Racism. Findings highlight the collaborative process used to identify and implement this novel method and the adaptability of this technique in the interdisciplinary exploration of system-level changes to understand and address disparities in breast cancer and cancer care.

A Multi-faceted Intervention Aimed at Black-White Disparities in the Treatment of Early Stage Cancers: The ACCURE Pragmatic Quality Improvement trial.

BACKGROUND: Reports continue to show that Blacks with curable lung or breast cancer complete treatment less often than similar Whites contributing to worse survival. ACCURE is an intervention trial designed to address this problem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pragmatic, quality improvement trial comparing an intervention group to retrospective and concurrent controls. Patients with early stage breast or lung cancer aged 18 to 85 were enrolled (N = 302) at 2 cancer centers between April 2013 and March 2015 for the intervention component. Data from patients seen between January 2007 and December 2012 with these diagnoses were obtained to establish control completion rates. Concurrent data for non-study patients were used to identify secular trends. The intervention included: a real time registry derived from electronic health records of participants to signal missed appointments or unmet care milestones, a navigator, and clinical feedback. The primary outcome was "Treatment Complete", a composite variable representing completion of surgery, recommended radiation and chemotherapy for each patient. RESULTS: The mean age in the intervention group was 63.1 years; 37.1% of patients were Black. Treatment completion in retrospective and concurrent controls showed significant Black-White differences (Blacks (B) 79.8% vs. Whites (W) 87.3%, p < 0.001; 83.1% B vs. 90.1% W, p < 0.001, respectively). The disparity lessened within the intervention (B 88.4% and W 89.5%, p = 0.77). Multivariate analyses confirmed disparities reduction. OR for Black-White disparity within the intervention was 0.98 (95% CI 0.46-2.1); Black completion in the intervention compared favorably to Whites in retrospective (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.90-2.9) and concurrent (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.59-2.0) controls. CONCLUSION: A real time registry combined with feedback and navigation improved completion of treatment for all breast and lung cancer patients and narrowed disparities. Similar multi-faceted interventions could mitigate disparities in the treatment of other cancers and chronic conditions.

Trust in Community-Engaged Research Partnerships: A Methodological Overview of Designing a Multisite Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Initiative.

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

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.

Conceptualizing trust in community-academic research partnerships using concept mapping approach: A multi-CTSA study.

OBJECTIVES: Collaborations between communities, healthcare practices and academic institutions are a strategy to address health disparities. Trust is critical in the development and maintaining of effective collaborations. The aim of this pilot study was to engage stakeholders in defining determinants of trust in community academic research partnerships and to develop a framework for measuring trust. METHODS: The study was conducted by five collaborating National Institute of Health' Clinical and Translational Sciences Awardees. We used concept mapping to engage three stakeholders: community members, healthcare providers and academicians. We conducted hierarchical cluster analysis to assess the determinants of trust in community-academic research partnerships. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants provided input generating 2,172 items that were consolidated into 125 unique items. A five cluster solution was defined: authentic, effective and transparent communication; mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships; sustainability; committed partnerships; and, communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems. CONCLUSION: Results from this study contribute to an increasing empirical body of work to better understand and improve the underlying factors that contribute to building and sustaining trust in community academic research partnerships.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.

Community-Guided Focus Group Analysis to Examine Cancer Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism™ and Equity (ACCURE) is a systems-change intervention addressing disparities in treatment initiation and completion and outcomes for early stage Black and White breast and lung cancer patients. Using a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, ACCURE is guided by a diverse partnership involving academic researchers, a nonprofit community-based organization, its affiliated broader based community coalition, and providers and staff from two cancer centers. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the collaborative process our partnership used to conduct focus groups and to code and analyze the data to inform two components of the ACCURE intervention: 1) a "power analysis" of the cancer care system and 2) the development of the intervention's training component, Healthcare Equity Education and Training (HEET), for cancer center providers and staff. METHODS: Using active involvement of community and academic partners at every stage in the process, we engaged Black and White breast and lung cancer survivors at two partner cancer centers in eight focus group discussions organized by race and cancer type. Participants were asked to describe "pressure point encounters" or critical incidents during their journey through the cancer system that facilitated or hindered their willingness to continue treatment. Community and academic members collaborated to plan and develop materials, conduct focus groups, and code and analyze data. CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative qualitative data analysis process strengthened the capacity of our community-medical-academic partnership, enriched our research moving forward, and enhanced the transparency and accountability of our research approach.