Deirdre Middleton

Bio: Deirdre Middleton is an academic researcher from ICF International. The author has contributed to research in topics: Survey data collection & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 6 publications receiving 33 citations.

Factors associated with biomedical research participation within community-based samples across 3 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

Abstract: Background Engaging diverse populations in biomedical research, including biospecimen donation, remains a national challenge. This study examined factors associated with an invitation to participate in biomedical research, intent to participate in biomedical research in the future, and participation in biomedical research and biospecimen donation among a diverse, multilingual, community-based sample across 3 distinct geographic areas. Methods Three National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers engaged in community partnerships to develop and implement population health assessments, reaching a convenience sample of 4343 participants spanning their respective catchment areas. Data harmonization, multiple imputation, and multivariable logistic modeling were used. Results African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and other racial minority groups were more likely to be offered opportunities to participate in biomedical research compared to whites. Access to care, history of cancer, educational level, survey language, nativity, and rural residence also influenced opportunity, intent, and actual participation in biomedical research. Conclusions Traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups reported heightened opportunity and interest in participating in biomedical research. Well-established community partnerships and long-standing community engagement around biomedical research led to a diverse sample being reached at each site and may in part explain the current study findings. However, this study illustrates an ongoing need to establish trust and diversify biomedical research participation through innovative and tailored approaches. National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers have the potential to increase opportunities for diverse participation in biomedical research through community partnerships and engagement. Additional work remains to identify and address system-level and individual-level barriers to participation in both clinical trials and biospecimen donation for research.

Differences in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Among Women Residing in Urban and Rural Communities in the United States.

Abstract: Importance Screening for breast and colorectal cancer has resulted in reductions in mortality; however, questions remain regarding how these interventions are being diffused to all segments of the population. If an intervention is less amenable to diffusion, it could be associated with disparities in mortality rates, especially in rural vs urban areas. Objectives To compare the prevalence of breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence and to identify factors associated with screening adherence among women residing in rural vs urban areas in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cross-sectional study of women aged 50 to 75 years in 11 states was conducted from 2017 to 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Adherence to cancer screening based on the US Preventative Services Task Force guidelines. For breast cancer screening, women who had mammograms in the past 2 years were considered adherent. For colorectal cancer screening, women who had (1) a stool test in the past year, (2) a colonoscopy in the past 10 years, or (3) a sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years were considered adherent. Rural status was coded using Rural Urban Continuum Codes, and other variables were assessed to identify factors associated with screening. Results The overall sample of 2897 women included 1090 (38.4%) rural residents; 2393 (83.5%) non-Hispanic White women; 263 (9.2%) non-Hispanic Black women; 68 (2.4%) Hispanic women; 1629 women (56.2%) aged 50 to 64 years; and 712 women (24.8%) with a high school education or less. Women residing in urban areas were significantly more likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening compared with women residing in rural areas (1429 [82%] vs 848 [78%];P = .01), whereas the groups were equally likely to be adherent to breast cancer screening (1347 [81%] vs 830 [81%];P = .78). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses confirmed that rural residence was associated with lower odds of being adherent to colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99,P = .047). Non-Hispanic Black race was associated with adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.78-4.56;P Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, women residing in rural areas were less likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening guidelines but were similarly adherent to breast cancer screening. This suggests that colorectal cancer screening, a more recent intervention, may not be as available in rural areas as breast cancer screening, ie, colorectal screening has lower amenability.

Weighting Nonprobability and Probability Sample Surveys in Describing Cancer Catchment Areas

Abstract: Background: The Population Health Assessment initiative by NCI sought to enhance cancer centers’ capacity to acquire, aggregate, and integrate data from multiple sources, as well as to plan, coordinate, and enhance catchment area analysis activities. Methods: Key objectives of this initiative are pooling data and comparing local data with national data. A novel aspect of analyzing data from this initiative is the methodology used to weight datasets from sites that collected both probability and nonprobability samples. This article describes the methods developed to weight data, which cancer centers collected with combinations of probability, and nonprobability sampling designs. Results: We compare alternative weighting methods in particular for the hybrid probability and nonprobability sampling designs employed by different cancer centers. We also include comparisons of local center data with national survey data from large probability samples. Conclusions: This hybrid approach to calculating statistical weights can be implemented both within cancer centers that collect both probability and nonprobability samples with common measures. Aggregation can also apply to cancer centers that share common data elements, and target similar populations, but differ in survey sampling designs. Impact: Researchers interested in local versus national comparisons for cancer surveillance and control outcomes should consider various weighting approaches, including hybrid approaches, when analyzing their data.

Parental Perspectives on Immunizations: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Childhood Vaccine Hesitancy.

Abstract: Childhood vaccine hesitancy has been studied extensively before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic presented new barriers to pediatric vaccinations. Furthermore, the development of COVID-19 vaccines has complicated factors underlying vaccine hesitancy. We performed a cross-sectional mobile phone-based survey at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles querying parents regarding perspectives on vaccines before and during the pandemic. Our primary aim was to understand the impact of the pandemic on routine childhood vaccine hesitancy. Secondarily, we examined intent to vaccinate, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and key contributing demographic factors. Among 252 participants, we found overall increased childhood vaccine hesitancy (p = 0.006), increased risk perception (p = 0.006), and unchanged vaccine confidence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased hesitancy did not translate into decreased intent to vaccinate with routine childhood vaccines or influenza vaccines. During the pandemic, households with higher income (50–99 K, > 100 K) correlated with decreased routine childhood vaccine hesitancy, while Hispanic ethnicity and African American race had increased risk perception. For COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, households with higher income (> 100 K) correlated with decreased hesitancy, while non-White ethnicity and race had increased risk perception. We found that routine childhood vaccine hesitancy increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly due to increased risk perception. Key contributing demographic factors behind both childhood vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy included household income and race. Understanding factors behind routine childhood vaccine hesitancy is crucial to maintaining pediatric vaccination rates and promoting vaccine confidence during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disparities in Pediatric Oncology: The 21st Century Opportunity to Improve Outcomes for Children and Adolescents With Cancer.

Abstract: Adult cancer disparities have been documented for decades and continue to persist despite clinical advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. Pediatric cancer survival has improved significantly in the United States for the past 5 decades to over 80%; however, disparate outcomes among children and adolescents with cancer still affect many populations in the United States and globally, including racial and ethnic minorities, populations with low socioeconomic status, and residents of underserved areas. To achieve equitable outcomes for all children and adolescents with cancer, it is imperative that concerted multilevel approaches be carried out to understand and address health disparities and to ensure access to high-quality cancer care. Addressing social determinants of health, such as removing barriers to health care access and ensuring access to social supports, can reduce pediatric cancer disparities. Nevertheless, public health policy, health system interventions, and innovative delivery of evidence-based services are critically needed. Partnerships among patients, caregivers, and health care providers, and among health care, academic, and governmental institutions, have a pivotal role in reducing cancer disparities and improving outcomes in the 21st century.

Who or What Influences the Individuals' Decision-Making Process Regarding Vaccinations?

Abstract: Thanks to vaccines, many people are not exposed to the risks associated with vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) This, however, results in growing popularity of antivaccine movements and affects global and local epidemiological situation Vaccine hesitancy has become a significant problem not only for epidemiologists but also for practitioners Fortunately, the hesitant group seems to be vulnerable to intervention, and studies indicate that these patients can be persuaded to undergo vaccinations The aim of the present study was to determine the factors most strongly affecting vaccination-related attitudes and decisions An anonymous, self-administered survey consisting of demographic data and single select multiple-choice questions regarding vaccination was conducted The voluntary study included secondary school pupils, medical and nonmedical students, healthcare professionals, hospital and clinic patients as well as parents A total of 7950 survey forms were distributed between January 2018 and June 2019 in south-eastern Poland A total of 6432 respondents (802%) completed a questionnaire that was eligible for analysis The positive attitude toward vaccination was significantly affected by older age, by the fact of obtaining information on vaccinations from a physician, this information's higher quality (assessed in school grade scale), higher level of knowledge on vaccines and by the fact of denying the association between vaccination and autism in children (p < 0001) The probability of supporting vaccinations was almost eight-fold lower among respondents believing the vaccine-autism relationship Chance of supporting vaccination doubled in the group with a higher knowledge level The individuals not provided with expert information on vaccination were twice as often unconvinced Age, education and having children significantly affected the attitude toward influenza immunization (p < 0001) Older, better educated respondents and those having children were more positive about vaccinations The medical community still exert decisive effects on attitudes toward vaccinations High-quality information provided by them is of great importance Skillful and competent provision of evidence-based information disproving the myth about vaccine-autism connection and proper education of medical staff is essential in molding positive attitudes toward vaccinations

Differences in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Among Women Residing in Urban and Rural Communities in the United States.

Abstract: Importance Screening for breast and colorectal cancer has resulted in reductions in mortality; however, questions remain regarding how these interventions are being diffused to all segments of the population. If an intervention is less amenable to diffusion, it could be associated with disparities in mortality rates, especially in rural vs urban areas. Objectives To compare the prevalence of breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence and to identify factors associated with screening adherence among women residing in rural vs urban areas in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants This population-based cross-sectional study of women aged 50 to 75 years in 11 states was conducted from 2017 to 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Adherence to cancer screening based on the US Preventative Services Task Force guidelines. For breast cancer screening, women who had mammograms in the past 2 years were considered adherent. For colorectal cancer screening, women who had (1) a stool test in the past year, (2) a colonoscopy in the past 10 years, or (3) a sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years were considered adherent. Rural status was coded using Rural Urban Continuum Codes, and other variables were assessed to identify factors associated with screening. Results The overall sample of 2897 women included 1090 (38.4%) rural residents; 2393 (83.5%) non-Hispanic White women; 263 (9.2%) non-Hispanic Black women; 68 (2.4%) Hispanic women; 1629 women (56.2%) aged 50 to 64 years; and 712 women (24.8%) with a high school education or less. Women residing in urban areas were significantly more likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening compared with women residing in rural areas (1429 [82%] vs 848 [78%];P = .01), whereas the groups were equally likely to be adherent to breast cancer screening (1347 [81%] vs 830 [81%];P = .78). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression analyses confirmed that rural residence was associated with lower odds of being adherent to colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99,P = .047). Non-Hispanic Black race was associated with adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.78-4.56;P Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, women residing in rural areas were less likely to be adherent to colorectal cancer screening guidelines but were similarly adherent to breast cancer screening. This suggests that colorectal cancer screening, a more recent intervention, may not be as available in rural areas as breast cancer screening, ie, colorectal screening has lower amenability.