Personality and Self-efficacy for Illness Management in Cancer.

Objectives: Self-efficacy for illness management is increasingly recognized as important for outcomes in cancer. We examined whether The Big Five personality dimensions were associated with self-efficacy for illness management and hypothesized that patients who were less neurotic and more conscientious would have better self-efficacy. Methods: Adults with cancer completed a cross-sectional survey that included the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) and three subscales of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Self-Efficacy for Chronic Conditions: managing emotions, managing symptoms, and managing treatment and medication. Linear regressions were used to test the hypotheses, while controlling for covariates. Results: The personality and PROMIS self-efficacy measures demonstrated good evidence of reliability (median Cronbach's alpha = .78, range of .69-.92) and validity (intercorrelations). As hypothesized, patients who were less neurotic or more conscientious had higher levels of illness self-efficacy overall and on each of the three subscales (all ps < .001). Openness was associated with better self-management of symptoms (p = .013) and emotions (p = .040). Extraversion was associated with better self-management of emotions (p = .024). Conclusions: Personality plays a vital role in illness self-efficacy for patients with cancer. Practice Implications: As a part of multidisciplinary care teams, psychosocial experts can use these findings to help patients better manage their illness.

Cultivating community-based participatory research (CBPR) to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: an illustrative example of partnership and topic prioritization in the food services industry.

BACKGROUND: As an illustrative example of COVID-19 pandemic community-based participatory research (CBPR), we describe a community-academic partnership to prioritize future research most important to people experiencing high occupational exposure to COVID-19 - food service workers. Food service workers face key challenges surrounding (1) health and safety precautions, (2) stress and mental health, and (3) the long-term pandemic impact. METHOD: Using CBPR methodologies, academic scientists partnered with community stakeholders to develop the research aims, methods, and measures, and interpret and disseminate results. We conducted a survey, three focus groups, and a rapid qualitative assessment to understand the three areas of concern and prioritize future research. RESULTS: The survey showed that food service employers mainly supported basic droplet protections (soap, hand sanitizer, gloves), rather than comprehensive airborne protections (high-quality masks, air quality monitoring, air cleaning). Food service workers faced challenging decisions surrounding isolation, quarantine, testing, masking, vaccines, and in-home transmission, described anxiety, depression, and substance use as top mental health concerns, and described long-term physical and financial concerns. Focus groups provided qualitative examples of concerns experienced by food service workers and narrowed topic prioritization. The rapid qualitative assessment identified key needs and opportunities, with help reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission identified as a top priority. COVID-19 mitigation scientists offered recommendations for reducing in-home transmission. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced food service workers to experience complex decisions about health and safety, stress and mental health concerns, and longer-term concerns. Challenging health decisions included attempting to avoid an airborne infectious illness when employers were mainly only concerned with droplet precautions and trying to decide protocols for testing and isolation without clear guidance, free tests, or paid sick leave. Key mental health concerns were anxiety, depression, and substance use. Longer-term challenges included Long COVID, lack of mental healthcare access, and financial instability. Food service workers suggest the need for more research aimed at reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission and supporting long-term mental health, physical health, and financial concerns. This research provides an illustrative example of how to cultivate community-based partnerships to respond to immediate and critical issues affecting populations most burdened by public health crises.

Identify factors for insufficient (> 2 yr) mammogram screening among Oregonian women.

PURPOSE: Women with breast cancer diagnosed from mammogram screenings have a lower mortality risk than women diagnosed from symptoms. Currently, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force recommends biannual screening for women aged 50-74 years old. In this study, we aimed to identify factors associated with inadequate screening defined as "no mammogram screening within past 2 years" to guide cancer prevention and early detection efforts. METHODS: This study utilized area-based probabilistic sampling survey data, collected across Oregon in 2019. Dataset weights were calculated using a raking approach. Demographic and behavior information were collected with existing validated questionnaire items from national surveys. Weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses with missing-value imputations were conducted to identify factors associated with inadequate mammogram screening. RESULTS: The study included 254 women 50-74 years old without previous breast or ovarian cancer history. 19.29% of the sample reported no mammogram within two years, including 1.57% with no previous mammograms. Following unadjusted analyses, the significant factors included education, occupation status, health insurance and smoking and were therefore included into the adjusted model. In the multivariate adjusted model education remained significant while occupation status, health insurance and smoking were no longer significant. Compared to women with a college graduate degree, women with less than college graduate degree were at higher risk of inadequate screening [OR (95% CI) = 3.23 (1.54, 6.74)]. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of education was significantly associated with inadequate mammogram screening even after adjusting for occupation status, health insurance and smoking, which should prompt further outreach and education.