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.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Uptake: Increase for American Indian Adolescents, 2013-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Although Indian Health Service, tribally-operated, and urban Indian (I/T/U) healthcare facilities have higher human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series initiation and completion rates among adolescent patients aged 13-17 years than the general U.S. population, challenges remain. I/T/U facilities have lower coverage for HPV vaccine first dose compared with coverage for other adolescent vaccines, and HPV vaccine series completion rates are lower than initiation rates. Researchers aimed to assist I/T/U facilities in identifying interventions to increase HPV vaccination series initiation and completion rates. STUDY DESIGN: Best practice and intervention I/T/U healthcare facilities were identified based on baseline adolescent HPV vaccine coverage data. Healthcare professionals were interviewed about barriers and facilitators to HPV vaccination. Researchers used responses and evidence-based practices to identify and assist facilities in implementing interventions to increase adolescent HPV vaccine series initiation and completion. Coverage and interview data were collected from June 2013 to June 2015; data were analyzed in 2015. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: I/T/U healthcare facilities located within five Indian Health Service regions. INTERVENTION: Interventions included analyzing and providing feedback on facility vaccine coverage data, educating providers about HPV vaccine, expanding access to HPV vaccine, and establishing or expanding reminder recall and education efforts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Impact of evidence-based strategies and best practices to support HPV vaccination. RESULTS: Mean baseline first dose coverage with HPV vaccine at best practice facilities was 78% compared with 46% at intervention facilities. Mean third dose coverage was 48% at best practice facilities versus 19% at intervention facilities. Intervention facilities implemented multiple low-cost, evidence-based strategies and best practices to increase vaccine coverage. At baseline, most facilities used electronic provider reminders, had standing orders in place for administering HPV vaccine, and administered tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis and HPV vaccines during the same visit. At intervention sites, mean coverage for HPV initiation and completion increased by 24% and 22%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored multifaceted approach addressing vaccine delivery processes and patient and provider education may increase HPV vaccine coverage.

Racial misclassification of American Indians and Alaska Natives by Indian Health Service Contract Health Service Delivery Area.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the racial misclassification of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) in cancer incidence and all-cause mortality data by Indian Health Service (IHS) Contract Health Service Delivery Area (CHSDA). METHODS: We evaluated data from 3 sources: IHS-National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), IHS-National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR)/Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program, and National Longitudinal Mortality Study (NLMS). We calculated, within each data source, the sensitivity and classification ratios by sex, IHS region, and urban-rural classification by CHSDA county. RESULTS: Sensitivity was significantly greater in CHSDA counties (IHS-NVSS: 83.6%; IHS-NPCR/SEER: 77.6%; NLMS: 68.8%) than non-CHSDA counties (IHS-NVSS: 54.8%; IHS-NPCR/SEER: 39.0%; NLMS: 28.3%). Classification ratios indicated less misclassification in CHSDA counties (IHS-NVSS: 1.20%; IHS-NPCR/SEER: 1.29%; NLMS: 1.18%) than non-CHSDA counties (IHS-NVSS: 1.82%; IHS-NPCR/SEER: 2.56%; NLMS: 1.81%). Race misclassification was less in rural counties and in regions with the greatest concentrations of AI/AN persons (Alaska, Southwest, and Northern Plains). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting presentation and analysis to CHSDA counties helped mitigate the effects of race misclassification of AI/AN persons, although a portion of the population was excluded.

Human papillomavirus vaccination practices among providers in Indian health service, tribal and urban Indian healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is of particular importance in American Indian/Alaska Native women because of the higher rate of cervical cancer incidence compared to non-Hispanic white women. To better understand HPV vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices among providers working with American Indian/Alaska Native populations, we conducted a provider survey in Indian Health Service, Tribal and Urban Indian (I/T/U) facilities. METHODS: During December 2009 and January 2010, we distributed an on-line survey to providers working in I/T/U facilities. We also conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of providers. RESULTS: There were 268 surveys and 51 provider interviews completed. Providers were more likely to administer vaccine to 13-18-year-olds (96%) than to other recommended age groups (89% to 11-12-year-olds and 64% to 19-26-year-olds). Perceived barriers to HPV vaccination for 9-18-year-olds included parental safety and moral/religious concerns. Funding was the main barrier for 19-26-year-olds. Overall, providers were very knowledgeable about HPV, although nearly half of all providers and most obstetricians/gynecologists thought that a pregnancy test should precede vaccination. Sixty-four percent of providers of patients receiving the vaccine do not routinely discuss the importance of cervical cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for HPV vaccination have been broadly implemented in I/T/U settings. Vaccination barriers identified by I/T/U providers are similar to those reported in other provider surveys. Provider education efforts should stress that pregnancy testing is not needed before vaccination and the importance of communicating the need for continued cervical cancer screening.

Pandemic influenza preparedness and vulnerable populations in tribal communities.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) governments are sovereign entities with inherent authority to establish and administer public health programs within their communities and will be critical partners in national efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza. Within AIAN communities, some subpopulations will be particularly vulnerable during an influenza pandemic because of their underlying health conditions, whereas others will be at increased risk because of limited access to prevention or treatment interventions.We outline potential issues to consider in identifying and providing appropriate services for selected vulnerable populations within tribal communities. We also highlight pandemic influenza preparedness resources available to tribal leaders and their partners in state and local health departments, academia, community-based organizations, and the private sector.