Native Hawaiians (NH), like other Indigenous peoples, continue to experience the subversive impacts of colonization. The traumatic effects of colonization, especially the forced relocation from land that sustained their life and health, have led to complex, interconnected health disparities seen today. NHs have described a collective feeling of kaumaha (heavy, oppressive sadness) resulting from mass land dispossession, overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, cultural loss, and early loss of loved ones. Although historical trauma is linked to high rates of substance misuse, depression, suicidality, and other mental health disparities in American Indian populations. However, the link between NH historical trauma and health disparities among NHs has been less explored. This qualitative study used Indigenous talk story interviews with 34 NH ʻōpio (youth) and ka lawelawe (service providers) to explore how NH ʻōpio understand and experience historical trauma. Eight themes and 35 sub-themes were identified covering individual, community, and systemic domains representing the first step in addressing NH historical trauma.

109 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical care in all areas of the US and had a profound impact on cancer screening, with a concern that this may lead to excess cancer-related deaths over the next decade. There are existing disparities in cancer mortality among rural US residents and Native Hawaiians (NHs) due to access issues, lower socioeconomic status and lack of a sufficient provider workforce. A reduction in cancer screening may therefore have an oversized impact on these populations. In this study, we examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening frequency among NHs and in urban and rural populations in Hawaii. Methods: De-identified data on the frequencies of breast cancer (BCS), cervical cancer (CCS) and colorectal cancer (CRCS) screenings for 2019 and 2020 were obtained for Hawaii residents from several sources, including Hawaii Medical Services Association, the largest private and Medicaid provider in Hawaii, and the two largest state-wide health systems, Queen’s Health Systems and Hawaii Pacific Health. Data was analyzed using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) and Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes to define rurality and, along with health system facility location, to ascertain whether there was a differential impact on cancer screening rates for rural populations due to the pandemic. Cancer screening data for NHs in comparison to other groups was analyzed separately. Results: Overall, reductions in cancer screening during the pandemic were seen, with the degree of reduction varying widely across regions of the state and among different ethnic populations. Annual reductions in BCS, CCS and CRCS ranged from 4.0-30.2%, 2.7-3.0% and 9.4-13.2%, respectively, depending on the data source. BCS reductions were greatest in rural areas (p = 0.09) and among NHs (p = 0.0005). The island of Kauai, which is rural but was minimally affected by COVID-19, saw no reduction in BCS. CCS reductions had a reverse urban vs. rural pattern, with reductions of 4.5% urban and 0.8% rural (p = 0.02). CRCS reductions were most profound in rural residents (17.1%; p = 0.0001); reductions in CRCS among NHs were 1.5x greater than other groups. The differential impact across urban and rural areas was consistent for both RUCC and RUCA analysis. The extent of reduction was most significant for CRCS and was directly proportional to the degree of rurality. Conclusions: BCS and CRCS were impacted more significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic than CCS. For BCS and CRCS, greater reductions were seen in rural compaed to urban populations and in NHs. The lack of correlation with rurality for CCS may be because this population is generally younger and screening is often provided as a component of primary care. The greater pandemic-related reduction in screening among rural residents and Native Hawaiians may exacerbate existing cancer mortality disparities in these vulnerable populations.

168 Background: According to the Institute of Medicine, care coordination (CC) is a critical component of high-quality cancer care; however, many patients with cancer continue to experience fragmented care. CC experiences among cancer clinical trial (CT) participants are relatively unknown. Using mixed methods, we examined perceptions of CC among patients enrolled on therapeutic CTs conducted through the Hawaii Minority/Underserved NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Methods: Forty-five CT participants completed the validated Care Coordination Instrument (CCI). The CCI assesses cancer patients’ perceptions of CC overall and across Communication, Navigation, and Operational domains. Data from 45 non-CT participants matched by age, gender, cancer type (breast, GI, other), and clinical stage from our prior studies served as a control group. Paired t-tests were used to compare the CCI scores between the two groups. Three semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with 14 CT participants in 2020 and 2021. Results: The mean age of CT participants was 61.7 ( SD = 9.4), with the majority being female (67%) and Asian (56%). The most common cancer disease sites were breast (27%) and GI (16%). CT participants reported significantly higher total CC scores than non-participants ( p =.0008). Similar trends were found for Navigation ( p =.007) and Operational ( p =.001) domain scores. 56% of CT participants reported receiving moderate to high-intensity CC assistance from their clinical research professionals (CRPs). Content analysis of focus group discussions revealed that the majority of CT participants’ comments aligned with CC domains; 42% Communication, 30% Navigation, and 28% Operational. Nearly half of focus group discussions centered on CRPs (47%), including CC support provided by CRPs (26%). Other key themes that emerged from the focus groups included general CT experiences (22%) and CRP involvement as an additional benefit to CT participation (15%). Conclusions: Clinical trial participants perceive better CC than non-CT participants, partly attributed to CC support provided by CRPs. Our findings highlight a generally unrecognized yet integral role of CRPs as part of a cancer clinical trial care team. CRP involvement may be an additional benefit of CT participation and contribute to improved quality and value for patient-centered cancer care.