Search

ABSTRACTHPV vaccination coverage remains far below the national target of 80% among US adolescents, particularly in rural areas, which have vaccine uptake rates that are 10% points lower than non-rural areas on average. Primary care professionals (PCPs) can increase coverage by using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination in a way that assumes parents want to vaccinate. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored PCPs’ experiences and perceptions of using presumptive recommendations in rural- and non-rural-serving primary care clinics in North Carolina. Thematic analysis revealed that most PCPs in rural and non-rural contexts used presumptive recommendations and felt the strategy was an effective and concise way to introduce the topic of HPV vaccination to parents. At the same time, some PCPs raised concerns about presumptive recommendations potentially straining relationships with certain parents, including those who had previously declined HPV vaccine or who distrust medical authority due to their past experiences with the healthcare system. PCPs dealt with these challenges by using a more open-ended approach when introducing HPV vaccination to parents. In conclusion, our findings suggest that PCPs in both rural and non-rural settings see value in using presumptive recommendations to introduce HPV vaccination, but to adequately address concerns and ensure increased HPV vaccine uptake, PCPs can use simple and culturally sensitive language to ensure fully informed consent and to maintain parental trust. And to further strengthen HPV vaccine discussions, PCPs can utilize other effective HPV communication techniques, like the Announcement Approach, in discussing HPV vaccinations with hesitant parents.

Abstract Background Despite the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine being a safe, effective cancer prevention method, its uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). Previous research has found a variety of intervention strategies (environmental and behavioral) to increase its uptake. The purpose of the study is to systematically review the literature on interventions that promote HPV vaccination from 2015 to 2020. Methods We updated a systematic review of interventions to promote HPV vaccine uptake globally. We ran keyword searches in six bibliographic databases. Target audience, design, level of intervention, components and outcomes were abstracted from the full-text articles in Excel databases. Results Of the 79 articles, most were conducted in the U.S. (72.2%) and in clinical (40.5%) or school settings (32.9%), and were directed at a single level (76.3%) of the socio-ecological model. Related to the intervention type, most were informational (n = 25, 31.6%) or patient-targeted decision support (n = 23, 29.1%). About 24% were multi-level interventions, with 16 (88.9%) combining two levels. Twenty-seven (33.8%) reported using theory in intervention development. Of those reporting HPV vaccine outcomes, post-intervention vaccine initiation ranged from 5% to 99.2%, while series completion ranged from 6.8% to 93.0%. Facilitators to implementation were the use of patient navigators and user-friendly resources, while barriers included costs, time to implement and difficulties of integrating interventions into the organizational workflow. Conclusions There is a strong need to expand the implementation of HPV-vaccine promotion interventions beyond education alone and at a single level of intervention. Development and evaluation of effective strategies and multi-level interventions may increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine among adolescents and young adults.

BackgroundFinancial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations.MethodsWe conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality.ResultsResults from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources.ConclusionsStaff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

Abstract Background Almost half of the patients with cancer report cancer-related financial hardship, termed “financial toxicity” (FT), which affects health-related quality of life, care retention, and, in extreme cases, mortality. This increasingly prevalent hardship warrants urgent intervention. Financial navigation (FN) targets FT by systematically identifying patients at high risk, assessing eligibility for existing resources, clarifying treatment cost expectations, and working with patients and caregivers to develop a plan to cope with cancer costs. This trial seeks to (1) identify FN implementation determinants and implementation outcomes, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FN in improving patient outcomes. Methods The Lessening the Impact of Financial Toxicity (LIFT) study is a multi-site Phase 2 clinical trial. We use a pre-/post- single-arm intervention to examine the effect of FN on FT in adults with cancer. The LIFT trial is being conducted at nine oncology care settings across North Carolina in the United States. Sites vary in geography (five rural, four non-rural), size (21–974 inpatient beds), and ownership structure (governmental, non-profit). The study will enroll 780 patients total over approximately 2 years. Eligible patients must be 18 years or older, have a confirmed cancer diagnosis (any type) within the past 5 years or be living with advanced disease, and screen positive for cancer-related financial distress. LIFT will be delivered by full- or part-time financial navigators and consists of 3 components: (1) systematic FT screening identification and comprehensive intake assessment; (2) connecting patients experiencing FT to financial support resources via trained oncology financial navigators; and (3) ongoing check-ins and electronic tracking of patients’ progress and outcomes by financial navigators. We will measure intervention effectiveness by evaluating change in FT (via the validated Comprehensive Score of Financial Toxicity, or COST instrument) (primary outcome), as well as health-related quality of life (PROMIS Global Health Questionnaire), and patient-reported delayed or forgone care due to cost. We also assess patient- and stakeholder-reported implementation and service outcomes post-intervention, including uptake, fidelity, acceptability, cost, patient-centeredness, and timeliness. Discussion This study adds to the growing evidence on FN by evaluating its implementation and effectiveness across diverse oncology care settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04931251. Registered on June 18, 2021.

BackgroundCancer-related financial hardship is associated with negative clinical outcomes, which may be partially explained by cost-related delayed or forgone care in response to financial barriers. We sought to understand patient experiences facing financial barriers to medical care following a cancer diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted virtual, semi-structured interviews in Fall 2022 with 20 adults with a history of cancer who had experienced cancer-related financial hardship in the prior year. We used template analysis within a pragmatic paradigm, combining constructivist and critical realist theoretical perspectives, to analyze interview transcripts and adapt an existing conceptual framework of financial barriers to care.ResultsThe majority of interviewees identified as women (70%), non-Hispanic white (60%), and reported an annual household income of

BackgroundDespite the use of interventions (e.g., monetary incentives, educational campaigns, on-site workplace vaccination) to increase COVID-19 vaccination, differences in uptake persist by poverty level, insurance status, geography, race, and ethnicity, suggesting that these interventions may not be adequately addressing the barriers faced by these populations. Among a sample of resource-limited individuals with chronic illnesses, we (1) described the prevalence of different types of barriers to the COVID-19 vaccination and (2) identified associations between patients' sociodemographic characteristics and barriers to vaccination.MethodsWe surveyed a national sample of patients with chronic illness and demonstrated healthcare affordability and/or access challenges about barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in July 2021. We categorized participant responses into cost, transportation, informational, and attitudinal barrier domains and assessed the prevalence of each domain, both overall and by self-reported vaccination status. Using logistic regression models, we examined unadjusted and adjusted associations between respondent characteristics (sociodemographic, geographic, and healthcare access) and self-reported barriers to vaccination.ResultsOf 1,342 respondents in the analytic sample, 20% (264/1,342) reported informational barriers and 9% (126/1,342) reported attitudinal barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Transportation and cost barriers were reported much less commonly, by only 1.1% (15/1,342) and 0.7% (10/1,342) of the sample, respectively. Controlling for all other characteristics, respondents with either a specialist as their usual source of care or no usual source of care had an 8.4 (95% CI: 1.7–15.1) and 18.1 (95% CI: 4.3–32.0) percentage point higher predicted probability, respectively, of reporting informational barriers to care. Compared to females, males had an 8.4% point (95% CI: 5.5–11.4) lower predicted probability of reporting attitudinal barriers. Only attitudinal barriers were associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake.ConclusionAmong a sample of adults with chronic illnesses who had received financial assistance and case management services from a national non-profit, informational and attitudinal barriers were more commonly reported than logistical or structural access barriers (i.e., transportation and cost barriers). Interventions should target attitudinal barriers among patients with chronic illness, who may have particular concerns about the interaction of the vaccine with ongoing medical care. Additionally, interventions targeting informational barriers are particularly needed among individuals without a usual source of care.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic response has demonstrated the interconnectedness of individuals, organizations, and other entities jointly contributing to the production of community health. This response has involved stakeholders from numerous sectors who have been faced with new decisions, objectives, and constraints. We examined the cross-sector organizational decision landscape that formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina.MethodsWe conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with 44 organizational decision-makers representing nine sectors in North Carolina between October 2020 and January 2021 to understand the decision-making landscape within the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. In line with a complexity/systems thinking lens, we defined the decision landscape as including decision-maker roles, key decisions, and interrelationships involved in producing community health. We used network mapping and conventional content analysis to analyze transcribed interviews, identifying relationships between stakeholders and synthesizing key themes.ResultsDecision-maker roles were characterized by underlying tensions between balancing organizational mission with employee/community health and navigating organizational vs. individual responsibility for reducing transmission. Decision-makers' roles informed their perspectives and goals, which influenced decision outcomes. Key decisions fell into several broad categories, including how to translate public health guidance into practice; when to institute, and subsequently loosen, public health restrictions; and how to address downstream social and economic impacts of public health restrictions. Lastly, given limited and changing information, as well as limited resources and expertise, the COVID-19 response required cross-sector collaboration, which was commonly coordinated by local health departments who had the most connections of all organization types in the resulting network map.ConclusionsBy documenting the local, cross-sector decision landscape that formed in response to COVID-19, we illuminate the impacts different organizations may have on information/misinformation, prevention behaviors, and, ultimately, health. Public health researchers and practitioners must understand, and work within, this complex decision landscape when responding to COVID-19 and future community health challenges.

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has popularized computer-based decision-support models, which are commonly used to inform decision making amidst complexity. Understanding what organizational decision makers prefer from these models is needed to inform model development during this and future crises. Methods. We recruited and interviewed decision makers from North Carolina across 9 sectors to understand organizational decision-making processes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic ( N = 44). For this study, we identified and analyzed a subset of responses from interviewees ( n = 19) who reported using modeling to inform decision making. We used conventional content analysis to analyze themes from this convenience sample with respect to the source of models and their applications, the value of modeling and recommended applications, and hesitancies toward the use of models. Results. Models were used to compare trends in disease spread across localities, estimate the effects of social distancing policies, and allocate scarce resources, with some interviewees depending on multiple models. Decision makers desired more granular models, capable of projecting disease spread within subpopulations and estimating where local outbreaks could occur, and incorporating a broad set of outcomes, such as social well-being. Hesitancies to the use of modeling included doubts that models could reflect nuances of human behavior, concerns about the quality of data used in models, and the limited amount of modeling specific to the local context. Conclusions. Decision makers perceived modeling as valuable for informing organizational decisions yet described varied ability and willingness to use models for this purpose. These data present an opportunity to educate organizational decision makers on the merits of decision-support modeling and to inform modeling teams on how to build more responsive models that address the needs of organizational decision makers. Highlights Organizations from a diversity of sectors across North Carolina (including public health, education, business, government, religion, and public safety) have used decision-support modeling to inform decision making during COVID-19. Decision makers wish for models to project the spread of disease, especially at the local level (e.g., individual cities and counties), and to help estimate the outcomes of policies. Some organizational decision makers are hesitant to use modeling to inform their decisions, stemming from doubts that models could reflect nuances of human behavior, concerns about the accuracy and precision of data used in models, and the limited amount of modeling available at the local level.

IntroductionCancer-related employment disruption contributes to financial toxicity and associated clinical outcomes through income loss and changes in health insurance and may not be uniformly experienced. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the financial consequences of employment disruption.MethodsWe surveyed a national sample of cancer patients employed at diagnosis who had received assistance from a national nonprofit about the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on employment. We used logistic regression models to examine racial/ethnic differences in income loss and changes in health insurance coverage.ResultsOf 619 cancer patients included, 63% identified as Non-Hispanic/Latinx (NH) White, 18% as NH Black, 9% as Hispanic/Latinx, 5% as other racial/ethnic identities, and 5% unreported. Over 83% reported taking a significant amount of time off from work during cancer diagnosis and treatment, leading to substantial income loss for 64% and changes in insurance coverage for 31%. NH Black respondents had a 10.2 percentage point (95% CI: 4.8 – 19.9) higher probability of experiencing substantial income loss compared to NH White respondents, and Hispanic or Latinx respondents had a 12.4 percentage point (95% CI: 0.3 – 24.5) higher probability compared to NH White respondents, controlling for clinical characteristics (i.e., cancer type, stage and age at diagnosis, and time since diagnosis). Similarly, NH Black respondents had a 9.3 percentage point (95% CI: -0.7 – 19.3) higher probability of experiencing changes in health insurance compared to NH White respondents, and Hispanic or Latinx respondents had a 10.0 percentage point (95% CI: -3.0 – 23.0) higher probability compared to NH White respondents.DiscussionCompared with NH White respondents, NH Black and Hispanic/Latinx respondents more commonly reported employment-related income loss and health insurance changes. Given documented racial/ethnic differences in job types, benefit generosity, and employment protections as a result of historic marginalization, policies to reduce employment disruption and its associated financial impact must be developed with a racial equity lens.