Participatory action research to develop and implement multicomponent, multilevel strategies for implementing colorectal cancer screening interventions in American Indian communities in New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, American Indians (AIs) have low screening rates in the US. Many AIs receive care at Indian Health Services, Tribal, and Urban Indian (I/T/U) healthcare facilities, where published evidence regarding the implementation of CRC screening interventions is lacking. To address this gap, the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center collaborated with two tribally-operated healthcare facilities in New Mexico with the goal of improving CRC screening rates among New Mexico's AI communities. METHODS: Guided by the principles of Community Based Participatory Research, we engaged providers from the two tribal healthcare facilities and tribal community members through focus group (two focus groups with providers (n = 15) and four focus group and listening sessions with community members (n = 65)), to elicit perspectives on the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide) recommended evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and strategies for increasing CRC screening. Within each tribal healthcare facility, we engaged a Multisector Action Team (MAT) that participated in an implementation survey to document the extent to which their healthcare facilities were implementing EBIs and strategies, and an organizational readiness survey that queried whether their healthcare facilities could implement additional strategies to improve uptake of CRC screening. RESULTS: The Community Guide recommended EBIs and strategies that received the most support as feasible and appropriate from community members included: one-on-one education from providers, reminders, small media, and interventions that reduced structural barriers. From the providers' perspective, feasible and acceptable strategies included one-on-one education, patient and provider reminders, and provider assessment and feedback. Universally, providers mentioned the need for patient navigators who could provide culturally appropriate education about CRC and assist with transportation, and improved support for coordinating clinical follow-up after screening. The readiness survey highlighted overall readiness of the tribal facility, while the implementation survey highlighted that few strategies were being implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study contribute to the limited literature around implementation research at tribal healthcare facilities and informed the selection of specific implementation strategies to promote the uptake of CRC screening in AI communities.

LGBTQ+ cancer: priority or lip service? A qualitative content analysis of LGBTQ+ considerations in U.S. state, jurisdiction, and tribal comprehensive cancer control plans.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded program, supports cancer coalitions across the United States (US) in efforts to prevent and control cancer including development of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans. CCC plans often focus health equity within their priorities, but it is unclear to what extent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) populations are considered in CCC plans. We qualitatively examined to what extent LGBTQ+ populations were referenced in 64 U.S. state, jurisdiction, tribes, and tribal organization CCC plans. A total of 55% of CCC plans mentioned LGBTQ+ populations, however, only one in three CCC plans mentioned any kind of LGBTQ+ inequity or LGBTQ+ specific recommendations. Even fewer plans included mention of LGBTQ+ specific resources, organizations, or citations. At the same time almost three fourths of plans conflated sex and gender throughout their CCC plans. The findings of this study highlight the lack of prioritization of LGBTQ+ populations in CCC plans broadly while highlighting exemplar plans that can serve as a roadmap to more inclusive future CCC plans. Comprehensive cancer control plans can serve as a key policy and advocacy structure to promote a focus on LGBTQ+ cancer prevention and control.

Cervical cancer screening outcomes for HIV-positive women in the Lubombo and Manzini regions of Eswatini-Prevalence and predictors of a positive visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screen.

This study aimed to describe the prevalence and predictors of a positive VIA (visual inspection with acetic acid) cervical cancer screening test in women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We retrospectively analysed data from women aged ≥15 who accessed VIA screening from health facilities in the Lubombo and Manzini regions of Eswatini. Sociodemographic and clinical data from October 2020 to June 2023 were extracted from the client management information system (CMIS). VIA screening outcome was categorised into negative, positive, or suspicious. A logistic regression model estimated the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of the predictors of a positive VIA screen at p<0.05 with 95% confidence intervals. Of 23,657 participants, 60.8% (n = 14,397) were from the Manzini region. The mean age was 33.3 years (standard deviation 7.0), and 33% (n = 7,714) were first-time screens. The prevalence of a positive VIA was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.2%, 3.0%): 2.8% (95% CI: 2.2%, 3.5%) in Lubombo and 2.4% (95% CI: 2.0%, 2.9%) in Manzini (p = 0.096). Screening at mission-owned (AOR 1.40; p = 0.001), NGO-owned (AOR 3.08; p<0.001) and industrial/workplace-owned health facilities (AOR 2.37; p = 0.044) were associated with increased odds of a positive VIA compared to government-owned health facilities. Compared to those aged 25-34, the odds of a positive VIA increased by 1.26 for those in the 35-44 age group (AOR 1.26; p = 0.017). Predictors with lower odds for a positive VIA test were: being on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) for 5-9 years (AOR 0.76; p = 0.004) and ≥10 years (AOR 0.66; p = 0.002) compared to <5 years; and having an undetectable viral load (AOR 0.39; p<0.001) compared to unsuppressed. Longer duration on ART and an undetectable viral load reduced the odds, while middle-aged women and screening at non-public health facilities increased the odds of a positive VIA screen.

An initiative to implement a triage and referral system to make exercise and rehabilitation referrals standard of care in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines suggest that patients should be referred to exercise while undergoing cancer treatment. Oncology clinicians report being supportive of exercise referrals but not having the time to make referrals. Toward the goal of making exercise referrals standard of care, we implemented and evaluated a novel clinical workflow. METHODS: For this QI project, a rehabilitation navigator was inserted in chemotherapy infusion clinics. Patients were offered a validated electronic triage survey. Exercise or rehabilitation recommendations were communicated to patients during a brief counseling visit by the rehabilitation navigator. The implementation approach was guided by the EPIS framework. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed. RESULTS: Initial meetings with nursing and cancer center leadership ensured buy-in (exploration). The education of medical assistants contributed to the adoption of the triage process (preparation). Audit and feedback ensured leadership was aware of medical assistants' performance (implementation). 100% of medical assistants participated in implementing the triage tool. A total of 587 patients visited the infusion clinics during the 6-month period when this QI project was conducted. Of these, 501 (85.3%) were offered the triage survey and 391 (78%) completed the survey (acceptability). A total of 176 (45%) of triaged patients accepted a referral to exercise or rehabilitation interventions (feasibility). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a validated triage tool by medical assistants and brief counseling by a rehabilitation navigator resulted in 45% of infusion patients accepting a referral to exercise or rehabilitation. The triage process showed promise for making exercise referrals standard of care for patients undergoing cancer treatment.

National Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Use in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Importance: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) deliver health care to nearly 30 million underserved persons across the US, yet nationwide and state-level breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening use in FQHCs is not described. Furthermore, it is unknown how the underscreened FQHC population contributes to the total underscreened population at national and state levels. Objective: To describe national- and state-level breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening use among individuals served by FQHCs in the US and to estimate the percentage of underscreened individuals in the general population served by FQHCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of cancer screening used data from January 1 through December 31, 2020, from the FQHC Uniform Data System, reported by 1364 FQHCs across the US, and self-reported estimates from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Participants were 16 696 692 US adults served by FQHCs who were eligible for breast (age, 50-74 years), cervical (age, 21-64 years), and colorectal (age, 50-75 years) cancer screening. Analyses were conducted between January 1 and June 30, 2023. Exposures: Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentages of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening-eligible individuals up to date on screening. Results: A total of 3 162 882 breast, 7 444 465 cervical, and 6 089 345 colorectal screening-eligible individuals were served by FQHCs in 2020. Nationally, screening use in FQHCs was 45.4% (95% CI, 45.4%-45.5%) for breast cancer, 51.0% (95% CI, 51.0%-51.1%) for cervical cancer, and 40.2% (95% CI, 40.1%-40.2%) for colorectal cancer. Screening use among the US general population was 78.2% (95% CI, 77.6%-78.9%) for breast cancer, 82.9% (95% CI, 82.3%-83.4%) for cervical cancer, and 72.3% (95% CI, 71.7%-72.8%) for colorectal cancer. The contribution of the underscreened population served by FQHCs to the national underscreened general population was 16.9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 16.4%-17.4%) for breast cancer, 29.7% (95% UI, 28.8%-30.7%) for cervical cancer, and 14.7% (95% UI, 14.4%-15.0%) for colorectal cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this national cross-sectional study indicated major gaps in cancer screening use in FQHCs in the US. Improved prevention is urgently needed to address screening disparities.

Recent trends in cervical cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality according to county-level income in the United States, 2000-2019.

Early evidence suggests that declining cervical cancer incidence reversed in low-income regions in the United States in recent years; however, it is unclear whether there are distinct patterns by race/ethnicity and stage at diagnosis and if the increase has translated into rising mortality. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, we evaluated trends in hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer incidence rates (2000-2019) and mortality rates (2005-2019) by county-level income and race/ethnicity, with further stratification of incidence by stage at diagnosis. Following a period of decline, hysterectomy-corrected cervical cancer incidence increased 1.0%/year (95% CI = 0.1% to 4.5%) among Non-Hispanic White women in low-income counties. Particularly, a statistically significant 4.4%/year (95% CI = 1.7% to 7.5%) increase in distant-stage cancer occurred in this group. Additionally, recent increases in cervical cancer mortality (1.1%/year [95% CI = -1.4% to 3.7%]) were observed among this group and Non-Hispanic Black women in low-income counties (2.9%/year [95% CI = -2.3% to 18.2%]), but trends were not statistically significant. Among Hispanic women in low-income counties, distant-stage cervical cancer incidence increased 1.5%/year (95% CI = -0.6% to 4.1%), albeit not statistically significant. The increasing incidence of distant-stage cervical cancer and mortality in specific racial/ethnic groups suggests that the recent introduction of higher sensitivity screening tests may not explain increasing trends in low-income counties. Our findings suggest that the observed rise in cervical cancer incidence may reflect disruptions along the screening and treatment continuum. Future research to further comprehend these trends and continued enhancements in prevention are crucial to combat rising cervical cancer incidence and mortality in low-income counties in the United States.

Challenges and Opportunities for Paving the Road to Global Health Equity Through Implementation Science.

Implementation science focuses on enhancing the widespread uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve population health. However, optimizing implementation science to promote health equity in domestic and global resource-limited settings requires considering historical and sociopolitical processes (e.g., colonization, structural racism) and centering in local sociocultural and indigenous cultures and values. This review weaves together principles of decolonization and antiracism to inform critical and reflexive perspectives on partnerships that incorporate a focus on implementation science, with the goal of making progress toward global health equity. From an implementation science perspective, wesynthesize examples of public health evidence-based interventions, strategies, and outcomes applied in global settings that are promising for health equity, alongside a critical examination of partnerships, context, and frameworks operationalized in these studies. We conclude with key future directions to optimize the application of implementation science with a justice orientation to promote global health equity.

From study plans to capacity building: a journey towards health equity in cancer survivorship.

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework.

Introduction: Implementation is influenced by factors beyond individual clinical settings. Nevertheless, implementation research often focuses on factors related to individual providers and practices, potentially due to limitations of available frameworks. Extant frameworks do not adequately capture the myriad organizational influences on implementation. Organization theories capture diverse organizational influences but remain underused in implementation science. To advance their use among implementation scientists, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories identified in our previous work into theoretical domains in the Organization Theory for Implementation Science (OTIS) framework. Methods: The process of distilling organization theory constructs into domains involved concept mapping and iterative consensus-building. First, we recruited organization and implementation scientists to participate in an online concept mapping exercise in which they sorted organization theory constructs into domains representing similar theoretical concepts. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to produce visual representations (clusters) of the relationships among constructs in concept maps. Second, to interpret concept maps, we engaged members of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) OTIS workgroup in consensus-building discussions. Results: Twenty-four experts participated in concept mapping. Based on resulting construct groupings' coherence, OTIS workgroup members selected the 10-cluster solution (from options of 7-13 clusters) and then reorganized clusters in consensus-building discussions to increase coherence. This process yielded six final OTIS domains: organizational characteristics (e.g., size; age); governance and operations (e.g., organizational and social subsystems); tasks and processes (e.g., technology cycles; excess capacity); knowledge and learning (e.g., tacit knowledge; sense making); characteristics of a population of organizations (e.g., isomorphism; selection pressure); and interorganizational relationships (e.g., dominance; interdependence). Discussion: Organizational influences on implementation are poorly understood, in part due to the limitations of extant frameworks. To improve understanding of organizational influences on implementation, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories into six domains. Applications of the OTIS framework will enhance understanding of organizational influences on implementation, promote theory-driven strategies for organizational change, improve understanding of mechanisms underlying relationships between OTIS constructs and implementation, and allow for framework refinement. Next steps include testing the OTIS framework in implementation research and adapting it for use among policymakers and practitioners.

Transforming the field: the role of academic health centers in promoting and sustaining equity based community engaged research.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community engaged research (CEnR) are key to promoting community and patient engagement in actionable evidence-based strategies to improve research for health equity. Rapid growth of CBPR/CEnR research projects have led to the broad adoption of partnering principles in community-academic partnerships and among some health and academic organizations. Yet, transformation of principles into best practices that foster trust, shared power, and equity outcomes still remain fragmented, are dependent on individuals with long term projects, or are non-existent. This paper describes how we designed our Engage for Equity PLUS intervention that leverages the leadership and membership of champion teams (including community-engaged faculty, community partners and patient advocates) to improve organizational policies and practices to support equity based CBPR/CEnR. This article describes the feasibility and preliminary findings from engaging champion teams from three very different academic health centers. We reflect on the learnings from Engage for Equity PLUS; the adaptation of the intervention design and implementation, including the development of a new institutional assessment using mixed research methods; and our organizational theory of change. In summary, our design and preliminary data from the three academic health centers provide support for new attention to the role of institutional practices and processes needed to sustain equity-based patient and community-engaged research and CBPR and transform the field.

Supporting implementation science and health equity in cancer prevention and control through research networks.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network of academic, public health, and community organizational partners across multiple geographic sites who collaborate to reduce the cancer burden in diverse communities. Given key recommendations that suggest the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration in cancer prevention and control, we sought to explore the historical and contemporary evolution of health equity and disparities research as an area of focus within the CPCRN over time. We conducted 22 in-depth interviews with former and current leaders, co-investigators, and other members of the network. Several key themes emerged from data that were analyzed and interpreted using a constructivist, reflexive, thematic analysis approach. Nearly all participants reported a strong focus on studying health disparities since the inception of the CPCRN, which offered the network a distinct advantage in recent years for incorporating an intentional focus on health equity. Recent law enforcement injustices and the inequities observed during the COVID-19 pandemic have further invigorated network activities around health equity, such as development of a health equity-focused workgroup toolkit, among other cross-center activities. Several participants noted that, in terms of deep, meaningful, and impactful health equity-oriented research, there are still great strides for the network to make, while also acknowledging CPCRN as well-aligned with the national dialogue led by federal agency partners around health equity. Finally, several future directions were mentioned by the participants, including a focus on supporting a diverse workforce and engaging organizational partners and community members in equity-focused research. Findings from these interviews provide direction for the network in advancing the science in cancer prevention and control, with a strengthened focus on health equity.

Investigating the Joint Effect of Allostatic Load among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults with Risk of Cancer Mortality.

Sexual minorities (SM) have higher chronic physiologic stress as indicated by allostatic load (AL), which may be explained in part by consistent experiences of discriminatory practices. This is one of the first studies to examine the joint effects of SM status and AL on the association with long-term risk for cancer death. Retrospective analyses were conducted on 12,470 participants using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from years 2001 through 2010 linked with the National Death Index through December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of cancer deaths between groups of SM (those reporting as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or having same-sex sexual partners) status and AL. SM adults living with high AL (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.40-4.65) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults living with low AL (n = 6674). Among those living with high AL, SM (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.33-3.84) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults with high AL (n = 4957). SM with high AL have an increased risk of cancer mortality. These findings highlight important implications for promoting a focused agenda on cancer prevention with strategies that reduce chronic stress for SM adults.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

A culturally informed model to enhance breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings: perspectives of American Indian adults and healthcare providers in rural New Mexico.

PURPOSE: American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations have some of the lowest cancer screening rates compared to other racial/ethnic populations. Using community-based participatory research methods, we sought to characterize knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and approaches to enhance breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted 12 focus groups between October 2018 and September 2019 with 96 eligible AI adults and healthcare providers, recruited using non-probability purposive sampling methods from the Zuni Pueblo in rural New Mexico. We used the Multi-level Health Outcomes Framework (MHOF) to conduct a qualitative content analysis identifying mutable systems- and individual- level constructs important for behavior change that we crosslinked with the Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) recommended evidence-based interventions (EBIs) or approaches. RESULTS: Salient systems-level factors that limited uptake of cancer screenings included inflexible clinic hours, transportation barriers, no on-demand service and reminder systems, and brief doctor-patient encounters. Individual-level barriers included variable cancer-specific knowledge that translated into fatalistic beliefs, fear, and denial. Interventions to enhance community demand and access for screening should include one-on-one and group education, small media, mailed screening tests, and home visitations by public health nurses. Interventions to enhance provider delivery of screening services should include translation and case management services. CONCLUSIONS: The MHOF constructs crosslinked with CPSTF recommended EBIs or approaches provided a unique perspective to frame barriers and promoters of screening utilization and insights for intervention development. Findings inform the development of culturally tailored, theoretically informed, multi-component interventions concordant with CPSTF recommended EBIs or approaches aimed at improving cancer screening.

Identifying research practices toward achieving health equity principles within the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network.

PURPOSE: Although there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations. METHODS: The CPCRN's Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network's experience and collaborations. RESULTS: Data from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research. CONCLUSIONS: The toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.

Principles to operationalize equity in cancer research and health outcomes: lessons learned from the cancer prevention and control research network.

Reflecting their commitment to advancing health equity, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) established a Health Equity Workgroup to identify and distill guiding principles rooted in health equity, community-engaged participatory research (CBPR), social determinants of health, and racial equity frameworks to guide its collective work. The Health Equity Workgroup utilized a multi-phase, participatory consensus-building approach to: (1) identify recurrent themes in health and racial equity frameworks; (2) capture perspectives on and experiences with health equity research among CPCRN members through an online survey; (3) engage in activities to discuss and refine the guiding principles; and (4) collect case examples of operationalizing equity principles in cancer research. Representatives from all CPCRN centers endorsed nine core principles to guide the Network's strategic plan: (1) Engage in power-sharing and capacity building with partners; (2) Address community priorities through community engagement and co-creation of research; (3) Explore and address the systems and structural root causes of cancer disparities; (4) Build a system of accountability between research and community partners; (5) Establish transparent relationships with community partners; (6) Prioritize the sustainability of research benefits for community partners; (7) Center racial equity in cancer prevention and control research; (8) Engage in equitable data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination practices; and (9) Integrate knowledge translation, implementation, and dissemination into research plans. Dissemination products, such as toolkits and technical assistance workshops, reflecting these principles will foster knowledge transfer to intentionally integrate health and racial equity principles in cancer prevention and control research.

Implementing interventions to start HPV vaccination at age 9: Using the evidence we have.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is routinely recommended for adolescents aged 11 or 12 years but can begin at age 9. On-time HPV vaccination by the thirteenth birthday has proven to be effective in preventing HPV cancer and pre-cancer. However, HPV coverage rates continue to lag behind other routinely recommended vaccinations for adolescents. A promising approach to improving coverage is to start HPV vaccination at age 9. This approach has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society. Benefits of this approach include increased time to complete vaccination series by the thirteenth birthday, additional spacing of recommended vaccines, and a more concentrated focus on cancer prevention messaging. While promising, little is known about how and if existing evidence-based interventions and approaches can be used to promote starting HPV vaccination at age 9. Implementation science frameworks offer scientific direction in how to adapt current and develop new interventions to promote starting HPV vaccination at age 9 and accelerate dissemination and prevent HPV cancers.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Sessile serrated lesion detection rates continue to increase: 2008-2020.

Background and study aims We assessed sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) at a large academic medical center from 2008 to 2020 and modeled a local, aspirational target SSLDR. We also assessed SSLDRs among all gastroenterology fellows to better understand the relationship between SSLDRs and total colonoscopies performed. Patients and methods SSL-positive pathology results were flagged from a dataset composed of all screening colonoscopies for average-risk patients from 2008 to 2020. Unadjusted SSLDRs were calculated for individual endoscopists by year. A mixed effects logistic regression was used to estimate the log odds of SSL detection, with one model estimating division-wide predictors of SSL detection and a second model focused exclusively on colonoscopies performed by fellows. Model-adjusted SSLDRs were estimated for all 13 years and across both categories of all endoscopists and fellows only. Results Adjusted SSLDRs showed a consistent improvement in SSLDR from a low of 0.37 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.63) in 2008 to a high of 7.94 % (95 % CI: 6.34-9.54) in 2020. Among fellows only, the odds of SSL detection were significantly lower during their first year compared to their second year (OR: 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.66-0.98) but not significantly higher in their third year compared to their second year (OR: 1.09, 95 % CI: 0.85-1.4). Conclusions SSLDR increased steadily and significantly throughout our study period but variance among endoscopists persists. The peak SSLDR from 2020 of 7.94 % should serve as the local aspirational target for this division's attendings and fellows but should be continuously reevaluated.

Improving Comprehensive Cancer Control State Plans for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Four Corners Region of the United States.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disparities continue to persist in the four corners region (states of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado) of the United States. The Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) state plans provide a policy and practice snapshot on how a state identifies and addresses its cancer burden. This study critically examines the four state plans to identify gaps and opportunities for cancer prevention and control. Using a conventional content analysis approach, we reviewed the CCC plans for CRC screening-related information, culminating in a conceptual framework that highlights three themes. First, states reported their cancer burden using national data from American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Although these data informed specific goals and objectives, not all plans reported state-level data on CRC differences by specific social determinants of health and other characteristics. Second, it was not clear whether the interventions chosen to address state plan objectives were evidence-based and whether or not clearly described criteria were used for the selection of the interventions. Third, very limited information was provided in terms of state-specific contextual challenges and practical implementation of interventions. Study findings highlight opportunities to improve state-level cancer prevention and control efforts: first, by promoting the selection and adaptation of contextually relevant evidence-based interventions for this unique region; and second, through multidirectional engagement with communities, researchers, and policy and practice stakeholders. Such synergies in research and policies are vital for a coordinated and integrated approach to cancer prevention and control.