Search

Background: The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process., Objective: We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process., Design: We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data., Results: Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided., Discussion: This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably., Conclusion: The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity., Patient or Public Contribution: The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes., (© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are currently underrepresented in clinical trials. Data-driven, quantitative analyses and strategies are required to help address this inequity., Objective: To systematically analyze the geographical distribution of self-identified racial and socioeconomic demographics within commuting distance to cancer clinical trial centers and other hospitals in the US., Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal quantitative study used data from the US Census 2020 Decennial and American community survey (which collects data from all US residents), OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers list, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, National Trial registry, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data. Statistical analyses were performed on data collected between 2006 and 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Population distributions of socioeconomic deprivation indices and self-identified race within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute 1-way driving commute times from US cancer trial sites. Map overlay of high deprivation index and high diversity areas with existing hospitals, existing major cancer trial centers, and commuting distance to the closest cancer trial center., Results: The 78 major US cancer trial centers that are involved in 94% of all US cancer trials and included in this study were found to be located in areas with socioeconomically more affluent populations with higher proportions of self-identified White individuals (+10.1% unpaired mean difference; 95% CI, +6.8% to +13.7%) compared with the national average. The top 10th percentile of all US hospitals has catchment populations with a range of absolute sum difference from 2.4% to 35% from one-third each of Asian/multiracial/other (Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, population of 2 or more races), Black or African American, and White populations. Currently available data are sufficient to identify diverse census tracks within preset commuting times (30, 60, or 120 minutes) from all hospitals in the US (N = 7623). Maps are presented for each US city above 500 000 inhabitants, which display all prospective hospitals and major cancer trial sites within commutable distance to racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations., Conclusion and Relevance: This study identified biases in the sociodemographics of populations living within commuting distance to US-based cancer trial sites and enables the determination of more equitably commutable prospective satellite hospital sites that could be mobilized for enhanced racial and socioeconomic representation in clinical trials. The maps generated in this work may inform the design of future clinical trials or investigations in enrollment and retention strategies for clinical trials; however, other recruitment barriers still need to be addressed to ensure racial and socioeconomic demographics within the geographical vicinity of a clinical site can translate to equitable trial participant representation.

The Office of Cancer Health Equity at the Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center used a community-engaged approach to develop an innovative Population Health Navigation Program designed to improve access to cancer care and reduce cancer disparities., Competing Interests: Acknowledgments: The OCHE Population Health Navigation Program was initiated with funding from Winston Salem Foundation (Hispanic population); the NCI - grant P30CA012197-43S2 (rural population), the V Foundation (Black/African American population), and Teen Cancer America (AYA population). Disclosure of interests: No interests were disclosed., (Copyright ©2024 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.)

Cancer incidence and outcomes vary considerably between racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic (NH) Blacks are disproportionately burdened with the most common cancer types, having the highest death rate of any group. Racial health disparities are complex and have been identified at each step of the cancer care continuum, encompassing patient and provider factors and health care system processes. The higher cancer mortality among NH Blacks may reflect underuse of prevention strategies such as vaccination and screening, resulting in later stage of disease at diagnosis and underuse of cancer-directed therapy. Inequalities in the quality of care, including access to health care and receipt of recommended diagnostic and therapeutic interventions as well as supportive care also contribute to the excess burden of cancer-related deaths among NH Blacks. Non-clinical factors such as structural racism and lower socioeconomic status are associated with unequal access to resources such as housing, healthy foods, employment, and education, which have been demonstrated to drive racial disparities in cancer. Concerted efforts to understand and target the causes of the observed differences in access, screening, and treatment utilization will be critical for achieving more equitable treatment delivery and outcomes for all patients with cancer. Moreover, ongoing efforts to enhance diversity in clinical trials enrollment and access to novel precision medicine initiatives are processes warranted to reduce healthcare inequalities., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients., Materials and Methods: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment., Results: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion., Conclusion: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.

Cancer displays some of the largest health-equity concerns of all diseases. This paper draws attention to how health economics research can assess strategies to reduce or even eliminate health disparities and provides pivotal examples of existing research as well as areas for future contributions. The paper also highlights critical data limitations that currently restrain the impact health economics research could have. We then explore new areas of inquiry where economic research is sparse but could have an important impact on health equity, particularly in topics involving Medicare and Medicaid policies that expand reimbursement and generosity of coverage. Health economics studies are notably absent from policies and practices surrounding clinical trials, representing an opportunity for future research. We urge health economics researchers to consider experiments, interventions, and assessments through primary data collection; we further encourage the formulation of multidisciplinary teams to ensure that health economics skills are well melded with other areas of expertise. These teams are needed to maximize novelty and rigor of evidence. As policies are promulgated to address disparities in cancer, involvement of economics in a multidisciplinary context can help ensure that these policies do not have unintended impacts that may deepen inequities., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Implicit bias is one of the most insidious and least recognizable mechanisms that can cause inequity and disparities. There is increasing evidence that both implicit and explicit biases have a negative effect on patient outcomes and patient-physician relationships. Given the impact of Implicit bias, a joint session between ASTROs Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and the National Cancer Institute (the ASTRO-National Cancer Institute Diversity Symposium) was held during the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, to address the effect of implicit bias in radiation oncology through real life and synthesized hypothetical scenario discussions. Given the value of this session to the radiation oncology community, the scenarios and discussion are summarized in this manuscript. Our goal is to heighten awareness of the multiple settings in which implicit bias can occur as well as discuss resources to address bias., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Histiocytic sarcoma (HS) is a rare aggressive malignancy with a dismal prognosis and no agreed-upon standard treatment. Classically, the diagnosis of HS has been difficult to confirm and has relied on inaccurate, crude techniques. Therapy often involves intensive chemotherapeutic regimens, surgery, and/or radiotherapy, which are poorly tolerated with variable response rates. Patients often die of diffusely metastatic disease. Modern diagnostic techniques are helping to slowly uncover more uniquely customized therapeutic approaches in this enigmatic disease. We present a review of the current literature regarding HS diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Additionally, we describe the first reported case of HS transdifferentiated from follicular lymphoma that had a dramatic and durable response to rituximab/bendamustine alone as initial treatment. Unlike traditional chemotherapy regimens, this treatment was well tolerated and had a good toxicity profile. The combination of rituximab and bendamustine warrants further investigation in the treatment of HS, especially those originating from prior follicular lymphoma. Modern immunohistochemical and molecular profiling techniques are beginning to reveal heterogeneity among HS tumors and potentially therapeutic targets., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is currently much interest in identifying and mitigating gender inequity within medicine, the greater workforce and society as a whole. We provide an evidence-based review of current and historical trends in gender diversity in the RO physician workforce and identify potential barriers to diversity and inclusion in training, professional development, and career advancement. Next, we move to actionable items, addressing methods to mitigate bias, harassment, and other impediments to professional productivity and characterizing leadership lessons and imperatives for departmental, institutional, and organizational leaders.

Introduction: Cancer clinical trial (CT) participation rates are low and financial barriers likely play a role. We implemented a cancer care equity program (CCEP) to address financial burden associated with trial participation. We sought to examine the impact of the CCEP on CT enrollment and to assess barriers to participation., Methods: We used an interrupted time series design to determine trends in CT enrollment before and after CCEP implementation. Linear regression models compared trial enrollment before and after the CCEP. We also compared patient characteristics before and after the CCEP and between CCEP and non-CCEP participants. We surveyed CCEP and non-CCEP participants to compare pre-enrollment financial barriers., Results: After accounting for increased trial availability and the trends in accrual for prior years, we found that enrollment increased after CCEP implementation (18.97 participants per month greater than expected; p < .001). A greater proportion of CCEP participants were younger, female, in phase I trials, lived farther away, had lower incomes, and had metastatic disease. Of 87 participants who completed the financial barriers survey, 49 CCEP and 38 matched, non-CCEP participants responded (63% response rate). CCEP participants were more likely to report concerns regarding finances (56% vs. 11%), medical costs (47% vs. 14%), travel (69% vs. 11%), lodging (60% vs. 9%), and insurance coverage (43% vs. 14%) related to trial participation (all p < .01)., Conclusion: CT participation increased following implementation of the CCEP and the program enrolled patients experiencing greater financial burden. These findings highlight the need to address the financial burden associated with CT participation., Implications for Practice: Financial barriers likely discourage patients from participating in clinical trials. Implementation of a cancer care equity program (CCEP) seeking to reduce financial barriers by assisting with travel and lodging costs was associated with increased trial accrual. The CCEP provided assistance to patients particularly in need, including those living farther away, those with lower incomes, and those reporting financial barriers related to trial participation. These findings suggest that financial concerns represent a major barrier to patient participation in clinical trials and underscore the importance of efforts to address these concerns., (©AlphaMed Press.)