Search results

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Public willingness to collect personal family health history (FHH) assessments is integral to implement population screening to identify those at high cancer risk who could benefit most from lifesaving interventions. Yet, surprisingly little consideration has been given to factors associated with the public's perceived importance of FHH in the context of cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Using data from the 2013 Health Information National Trends survey, we assessed the association of intrapersonal (e.g., cancer worry), sociodemographic (e.g., education), and interpersonal-level factors (e.g., family trust) associated with <i>not</i> perceiving FHH assessment to be very important for personal health. Associations were tested with bivariate analyses and hierarchical logistic regression. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 3,007 respondents, 32.7% reported perceiving FHH as <i>not</i> very important to their health. Whites (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), males (<i>p</i> = 0.003), and those born in the United States (<i>p</i> = 0.004) were most likely to perceive FHH as not very important. Those who were least worried about cancer and perceived that cancer risk could not be lowered also viewed FHH as not very important (<i>p</i> = 0.002, <i>p</i> = 0.018, respectively). In hierarchical regression analyses, the association of low cancer worry remained significant after accounting for sociodemographic and interpersonal factors. The addition of sociodemographic factors modestly improved the model; the addition of interpersonal factors did not improve the model. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> A sizable proportion of the public does not perceive FHH to be very important, may be hard to reach, and impede implementation of population screening guidelines for inherited cancers. Campaigns to increase the perceived value of FHH assessment may need to be tailored to demographic subgroups, emphasize cancer prevention, and encourage family communication.

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> National guidelines endorse using evidence-based tools to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). This study aimed to evaluate whether women deemed not to be at increased risk of being a <i>BRCA</i> mutation carrier; the majority of those screened, recall, understand and accept the implications of these results for breast cancer risk. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted an online survey with women (<i>n</i> = 148) who screened negative on a brief HBOC screener. <b><i>Results:</i></b> While women tended to accept HBOC screener as accurate (range 9–45; mean 32, SD 5.0), less than half (43%) accurately recalled their result. Only 52% understood that they were at low risk of carrying a mutation, and just 34% correctly understood their breast cancer risk. African American women were less likely to recall (33 vs. 53% respectively, OR 0.5, <i>p</i> = 0.03), understand (42 vs. 63% respectively, OR 0.4, <i>p</i> = 0.02), and accept (mean 31 vs. 33 respectively, β –2.1, <i>p</i> = 0.02) the result compared to Whites. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our findings show that those at low risk of carrying a <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutation had limited understanding of the distinction between mutation risk and breast cancer risk. Theory-based communication strategies are needed to increase the understanding of the implications of being at low risk for hereditary cancers.

IntroductionSince 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).MethodsWe conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.ResultsCRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).ConclusionResults suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program's potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.

Purpose and objectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation.Intervention approachCDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates.Evaluation methodsWe surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation.ResultsMost grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity.Implications for public healthCRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

Introduction: Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling. Methods: Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020. Results: The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.yourfamilyconnects.org/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">www.yourfamilyconnects.org</ext-link>). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative. Discussion: Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

INTRODUCTION: Increases in global childhood vaccine delivery have led to decreases in morbidity from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, these improvements in vaccination have been heterogeneous, with some countries demonstrating greater levels of change and sustainability. Understanding what these high-performing countries have done differently and how their decision-making processes will support targeted improvements in childhood vaccine delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We studied three countries—Nepal, Senegal, Zambia—with exemplary improvements in coverage between 2000 and 2018 as part of the Exemplars in Global Health Programme. We apply established implementation science frameworks to understand the 'how' and 'why' underlying improvements in vaccine delivery and coverage. Through mixed-methods research, we will identify drivers of catalytic change in vaccine coverage and the decision-making process supporting these interventions and activities. Methods include quantitative analysis of available datasets and in-depth interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in the global, national and subnational government and non-governmental organisation space, as well as community members and local health delivery system personnel. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Working as a multinational and multidisciplinary team, and under oversight from all partner and national-level (where applicable) institutional review boards, we collect data from participants who provided informed consent. Findings are disseminated through a variety of forms, including peer-reviewed manuscripts related to country-specific case studies and vaccine system domain-specific analyses, presentations to key stakeholders in the global vaccine delivery space and narrative dissemination on the Exemplars. Health website.

Purpose. The Emory Prevention Research Center's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network mini-grant program funded faith-based organizations to implement policy and environmental change to promote healthy eating and physical activity in rural South Georgia. This study describes the existing health promotion environment and its relationship to church member behavior. Design. Cross-sectional. Setting. Data were obtained from parishioners of six churches in predominantly rural South Georgia. Subjects. Participants were 319 church members with average age of 48 years, of whom 80% were female and 84% were black/African-American. Measures. Questionnaires assessed perceptions of the existing church health promotion environment relative to nutrition and physical activity, eating behavior and intention to use physical activity facilities at church, and eating and physical activity behaviors outside of church. Analysis. Multiple regression and ordinal logistic regression using generalized estimating equations were used to account for clustered data. Results. Results indicate that delivering messages via sermons and church bulletins, having healthy eating programs, and serving healthy foods are associated with participants' self-reported consumption of healthy foods at church (all p values ≤ .001). Serving more healthy food and less unhealthy food was associated with healthier eating in general but not to physical activity in general (p values ≤ .001). Conclusion. The church environment may play an important role in supporting healthy eating in this setting and more generally.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) surveyed 282 cancer control planners to inform its efforts to increase the use of evidence-based cancer control programs (EBPs; programs that have been scientifically tested and successfully changed behavior). Respondents included planners from organizations in state Comprehensive Cancer Control coalitions as well as other governmental and non-governmental organizations, and community-based coalitions. Respondents provided information about personal and organizational characteristics, their cancer control programs, their attitudes toward EBPs, and their awareness and use of Web-based resources for EBPs. Although findings showed strong preferences for cancer control programs that have been shown to work, less than half of respondents (48%) had ever used EBP resources. Regardless of whether they had used EBP resources, almost all respondents (97%) indicated that further training would help them and their organization adopt and adapt EBPs for use in their communities. The most frequently endorsed training needs were finding and securing additional resources (such as funding and technical assistance), followed by adapting EBPs for cultural appropriateness. The CPCRN consortium is using these findings to develop a Web-based interactive training and decision support tool that is responsive to the needs identified by the survey respondents.