Cervical cancer (CC) incidence and mortality rates are increased, and CC screening rates are low among Appalachian Ohio women. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-tests to women to complete at home is a potential new strategy to engage women in CC screening. The authors aimed to gain insights into the perceived acceptability of mailed HPV self-tests. Focus groups were conducted (August 2014–January 2015) among providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses) and women in Appalachian Ohio. Providers (n = 28) and women (n = 15; age range: 32–62 years) reported general acceptance of HPV self-tests, however, for different reasons. Providers thought HPV self-testing would increase the proportion of under-screened women returning to the health-care system, while women thought self-testing would eliminate logistical and reduce psychological CC screening barriers. Findings provide insights into facilitators and barriers of completing an HPV self-test at home, returning it, reporting results, and providing needed follow-up care. To the authors’ knowledge, no systematic research exists addressing providers’ views regarding women’s use of HPV self-tests and the relation of such use to fostering subsequent Pap testing. This information will be useful in developing CC screening programs that include mailed HPV self-tests, as well as encouragement of follow-up Pap testing to meet existing CC screening guidelines.

The purpose of this study is to provide process data from campaigns (2009-2010) to improve colorectal cancer (CRC; intervention) screening and fruit and vegetable (F&V; comparison) consumption in 12 Appalachian Ohio counties. County-specific campaigns included one billboard, posters, and articles for local newspapers. Participants in CRC screening counties who reported seeing CRC screening billboards had greater intention to talk to a doctor/nurse about screening in the next 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI; 1.71, 4.99]) and had twice the odds of talking to a doctor/nurse about screening in the past year (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.29, 3.60]) compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants in F&V counties who reported seeing F&V billboards had twice the odds (OR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.35, 3.84]) of talking to a doctor/nurse in the past year about F&Vs compared to those who did not see the billboards. Participants who reported campaign exposure lived closer to the billboards compared to those who did not report campaign exposure (mean distance in miles from home to billboard: 8.8 vs. 10.9; p < .01). Most participants reported campaign messages were clear and important. Results suggest that partnering with community members to develop campaign materials is important to ensure cultural appropriateness and that exposure to the intervention components may affect health-related outcomes.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is commonly diagnosed in the USA despite screening tests that have decreased CRC incidence and mortality. Finding the best method to identify patient-level screening barriers is important to improve CRC screening rates. A group-randomized trial was conducted among ten primary-care clinics. Clinics were randomized to a multi-level (clinic, provider, patient) CRC screening intervention or usual care (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013). Subsequent to clinicand provider-level interventions, a three-step, patient-level intervention was conducted. One step of the patient-level intervention was a CRC screening barriers counseling call conducted by a lay health advisor (LHA). During the call, two methods were used to identify CRC screening barriers. An open-ended question was used first to determine why participants had not completed screening (without probes). Subsequently, the LHA read a list of additional potential screening barriers and asked participants whether each barrier was applicable (with probes). A generalized estimating equation approach was used to compare the two methods. Participants (n = 109) were female (59%), had a mean age of 57.2 years, and were white (67%) or black (31%). Most participants had some college education or a college degree (79%), annual household income $30,000+ (60%), and health insurance (80%). The number of CRC screening barriers increased with probing compared to the open-ended question format (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.92-2.31; p < 0.01). The ranking of reported CRC screening barriers did not vary by assessment method. However, the methodology used to document CRC screening barriers may influence the content of patient-directed interventions.

No abstract

Background: It is documented that inequities in research participation by minority and underrepresented populations limits the progression of personalized medicine for cancer treatment for these groups. A lack of understanding essential information during the consent process and poor physician-patient communication have been noted as two overarching barriers to patients participating in translational, clinical and biospecimen research. To address these major patient barriers, we developed a plain language research literacy support (RLS) tool to improve the consent process and facilitate dialogue between physicians/research staff and patients. We describe the tool's iterative development process and testing of the developed culturally appropriate RLS tool. Methods: We tested the tool among: 1) patient participants ≥18 years of age, who were able to read and speak English from communities associated with five academic centers in the Midwest and Northeast United States; and 2) eligible recruiters who were employed at an academic center and actively recruiting patients into research. The development process for the RLS tool consisted of two phases: cognitive and beta testing. During cognitive testing, we solicited feedback from patient and recruiter participants about the content and format of the tool including low literacy language, pictures and recommendations for additional content. The tool consisted of concept cards to provide information to assist patients in making an informed decision about participating in research. During beta testing, a condensed version of the tool was tested to assess acceptability and change in knowledge about research participation. Results: Participants included 155 patients (52: cognitive testing phase; 103: beta testing phase) and 20 recruiter participants. Patient participants were mostly females (71%). Self-identified race of patients included: Whites (43%), African Americans (32%), Native Americans (20%), and other (6%). In addition, 23% of patient participants self-identified as Hispanic. During the cognitive testing phase, patient participants reported that the information was clearly laid out and the tool explained the different steps in the recruitment and enrollment process. Patient participants indicated they had learned new information related to randomization, standard of care, coded-information, and biobanking. Although some patient participants acknowledged the cards contained a great deal of information, most reported that the information was essential. Several participants suggested cards be tailored for the Native American population. Recruiters indicated that the cards provided useful information and would assist patients and research staff. During beta testing phase, 98% of participants agreed the information on the cards helped them understand clinical research. After reviewing the cards, 49% of patient participants reported that they would be very likely to participate in research and 32% reported being somewhat likely to participate in research. The majority (61%) of participants indicated that if invited to participate in a research study, they would prefer that the cards would be mailed to them in advance while 34% wanted to review the cards at their medical appointment. Half of the participants preferred accessing the cards on a computer if administered in a video format. Conclusion: The RLS tool was well received among patient and recruiter participants, making it a potentially valuable resource for enrollment of minority and underrepresented patients into health research. The next step will be to test the RLS tool for effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial. Citation Format: Erika E. de la Riva, Rodney Haring, Elisa M. Rodriguez, Evelyn Gonzalez, Mira Katz, Nikia Clark, Whitney Ann E. Henry, Rosa O. Ortiz, Barret J. Zimmermann, Marla L. Clayman, Deborah O. Erwin, Judith S. Kaur, Melissa A. Simon. Development and beta testing of a culturally appropriate research literacy support tool to increase research participation among minority and underrepresented populations. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr A11.