Search

Despite their documented benefits, the widespread adoption of community-engaged and participatory approaches among health researchers remains limited. Institutional practices and policies influence the uptake of community engagement and participatory approaches. We examine the role of financial arrangements between university researchers and community partners, by exploring efforts to bridge the gap between research administration and researchers at two research-intensive institutions. The type of financial arrangement a researcher has with a community partner plays an important role in setting the stage for the structure of the partnership as it relates to shared decision-making and ownership of the research. Continued efforts to clarify and streamline subcontracting processes are needed as is infrastructure to support community partners and researchers as they navigate financial arrangements if progress is to be made.

This study presents findings from a cost and activity analysis of a citywide hospital‐based patient navigation program to engage women in timely breast cancer treatment post‐diagnosis. The information may be useful for payors in reimbursing navigation activities and health systems in planning for high quality navigation programs to ensure patient‐centered and timely treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Background: Patient navigation is an evidence‐based intervention for reducing delays in cancer care for underserved populations. There are limited economic evaluations of patient navigation in the US health care system and few have considered costs at various phases along the implementation spectrum. Having economic data, including costs and cost savings, can support sustainability of patient navigation programs. This study presents findings from a cost and activity analysis of a citywide hospital‐based patient navigation program to engage women in timely breast cancer treatment post‐diagnosis. Methods: This study was conducted as part of Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP), a citywide patient navigation hybrid effectiveness‐implementation research study conducted at five cancer care hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors surveyed participating patient navigators and supervisors about their tasks and level of effort over consecutive 10‐day periods from 2019 to 2021. Patient navigators documented the time spent on activities in accordance with an 11‐step protocol across five sites. Cost data were collected from annual fiscal year end expenditure hospital administrative databases at concurrent time frames. Descriptive analyses were used to calculate average time on tasks, cost per activity and cost per outcome. Cost savings were estimated by calculating the additional persons engaged in timely entry to treatment compared to a matched control group with respect to hospitalization and emergency room costs averted. Results: Average time spent per day on TRIP‐specific navigation activities was approximately 3 hours (range, 0–8 hours) and the average time per patient per day was 25 minutes (n = 7 navigators). Total costs for clinical site interventions were $218,394 for startup and $392,407 for maintenance costs over the study period. A total of 223 patients were served during the intervention period with an average cost per patient of $979 for startup and $1759 for maintenance. Potential costs savings with the TRIP navigation program from averted hospitalization and emergency room visits for 63 additional patients who received timely treatment is estimated at $21,798–$30,429 and $2536–$5692 per patient, respectively, compared to treatment as usual. Conclusions: The economic evaluation in this study provides insight into startup and implementation costs for uptake and scalability of navigation programs across a citywide system. The information may be useful for payors in reimbursing navigation activities and health systems in planning for high quality navigation programs to ensure patient‐centered and timely treatment for women diagnosed with breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Cancer screening rates among Latinas are suboptimal. The objective of this study was to explore how Latinas perceive cancer screening and the use and design of interactive voice response (IVR) messages to prompt scheduling of 1 or more needed screenings. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with Latina community health center patients (n = 40) in need of 1 or more cancer screenings: 5 groups were of women in need of 1 cancer screening (breast, cervical, or colorectal), and 2 groups were of women in need of multiple screenings. A bilingual researcher conducted all focus groups in Spanish using a semistructured guide. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English for analysis. Emergent themes were identified by using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Participants were familiar with cancer screening and viewed it positively, although barriers to screening were identified (unaware overdue for screening, lack of physician referral, lack of insurance or insufficient insurance coverage, embarrassment or fear of screening procedures, fear of screening outcomes). Women needing multiple screenings voiced more concern about screening procedures, whereas women in need of a single screening expressed greater worry about the screening outcome. Participants were receptive to receiving IVR messages and believed that culturally appropriate messages that specified needed screenings while emphasizing the benefit of preventive screening would motivate them to schedule needed screenings. CONCLUSION: Participants receptiveness to IVR messages suggests that these messages may be an acceptable strategy to promote cancer screening among underserved Latina patients. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of IVR messages in promoting completion of cancer screening.

IntroductionCancer screening rates among Latinas are suboptimal. The objective of this study was to explore how Latinas perceive cancer screening and the use and design of interactive voice response (IVR) messages to prompt scheduling of 1 or more needed screenings.MethodsSeven focus groups were conducted with Latina community health center patients (n = 40) in need of 1 or more cancer screenings: 5 groups were of women in need of 1 cancer screening (breast, cervical, or colorectal), and 2 groups were of women in need of multiple screenings. A bilingual researcher conducted all focus groups in Spanish using a semistructured guide. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English for analysis. Emergent themes were identified by using thematic content analysis.ResultsParticipants were familiar with cancer screening and viewed it positively, although barriers to screening were identified (unaware overdue for screening, lack of physician referral, lack of insurance or insufficient insurance coverage, embarrassment or fear of screening procedures, fear of screening outcomes). Women needing multiple screenings voiced more concern about screening procedures, whereas women in need of a single screening expressed greater worry about the screening outcome. Participants were receptive to receiving IVR messages and believed that culturally appropriate messages that specified needed screenings while emphasizing the benefit of preventive screening would motivate them to schedule needed screenings.ConclusionParticipants' receptiveness to IVR messages suggests that these messages may be an acceptable strategy to promote cancer screening among underserved Latina patients. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of IVR messages in promoting completion of cancer screening.

This article presents the findings of a study on the experiences of Community Advisory Board (CAB) members in a large multistate cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) focused on addiction. The study found that CAB members expressed a strong commitment to the study's goals but had unmet expectations for influencing study decisions within their advisory role. There were also lower levels of satisfaction with communication and power-sharing within the research teams. The study suggests that building a remote CAB within a community engagement strategy presents challenges and provides insights for enhancing CAB engagement in future research. [Extracted from the article]