Showing papers by "Karen M. Emmons published in 2023"
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors estimate the 10-year cost effectiveness of school-based BMI report cards, a commonly implemented program for childhood obesity prevention in the US where student BMI is reported to parents/guardians by letter with nutrition and physical activity resources, for students in grades 3 to 7.
Abstract: This study aimed to estimate the 10‐year cost‐effectiveness of school‐based BMI report cards, a commonly implemented program for childhood obesity prevention in the US where student BMI is reported to parents/guardians by letter with nutrition and physical activity resources, for students in grades 3 to 7.
TL;DR: In this article , the authors used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to assess the implementation of cancer prevention evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and describe how these EBIs are implemented internally and via community partnerships.
Abstract: Background More than half of cancers could be prevented by employing evidence-based interventions (EBIs), including prevention interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are the primary source of patient care for over 30 million Americans – making them an optimal setting for ensuring evidence-based prevention that advances health equity. The aims of this study are to: 1) determine the degree to which primary cancer prevention EBIs are being implemented within Massachusetts FQHCs and 2) describe how these EBIs are implemented internally and via community partnerships. Methods We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to assess the implementation of cancer prevention EBIs. First, we used quantitative surveys of FQHC staff to determine the frequency of EBI implementation. We followed up with qualitative one-on-one interviews among a sample of staff to understand how the EBIs selected on the survey were implemented. Exploration of contextual influences on implementation and use of partnerships was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative analyses used reflexive, thematic approaches, beginning deductively with codes from CFIR, then inductively coding additional categories. Results All FQHCs indicated they offered clinic-based tobacco interventions, such as clinician-delivered screening practices and prescription of tobacco cessation medications. Quitline interventions and some diet/physical activity EBIs were available at all FQHCs, but staff perceptions of penetration were low. Only 38% of FQHCs offered group tobacco cessation counseling and 63% referred patients to mobile phone-based cessation interventions. We found multilevel factors influenced implementation across intervention types – including the complexity of intervention trainings, available time and staffing, motivation of clinicians, funding, and external policies and incentives. While partnerships were described as valuable, only one FQHC reported using clinical-community linkages for primary cancer prevention EBIs. Conclusions Adoption of primary prevention EBIs in Massachusetts FQHCs is relatively high, but stable staffing and funding are required to successfully reach all eligible patients. FQHC staff are enthusiastic about the potential of community partnerships to foster improved implementation - providing training and support to build these relationships will be key to fulfilling that promise.
TL;DR: For example, this paper found that obesity and inactivity are poor prognostic factors in breast cancer, but less is known regarding physical activity and weight patterns in young breast cancer survivors.
Abstract: Obesity and inactivity are poor prognostic factors in breast cancer, but less is known regarding physical activity (PA) and weight patterns in young breast cancer survivors.
TL;DR: A systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies is presented in this article , where social determinants of health (SDOH) have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening.
Abstract: There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.
TL;DR: In this paper , a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial evaluated patient and provider activation (PAE + MD) and patient-and provider activation with teledermoscopy compared with patient activation alone, which included print materials, text messaging, and a website on skin cancer risk factors and screening behaviors.
Abstract: PURPOSE To improve skin cancer screening among survivors of childhood cancer treated with radiotherapy where skin cancers make up 58% of all subsequent neoplasms. Less than 30% of survivors currently complete recommended skin cancer screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial evaluated patient and provider activation (PAE + MD) and patient and provider activation with teledermoscopy (PAE + MD + TD) compared with patient activation alone (PAE), which included print materials, text messaging, and a website on skin cancer risk factors and screening behaviors. Seven hundred twenty-eight participants from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (median age at baseline 44 years), age > 18 years, treated with radiotherapy as children, and without previous history of skin cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1). Primary outcomes included receiving a physician skin examination at 12 months and conducting a skin self-examination at 18 months after intervention. RESULTS Rates of physician skin examinations increased significantly from baseline to 12 months in all three intervention groups: PAE, 24%-39%, relative risk [RR], 1.65, 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.08; PAE + MD, 24% to 39%, RR, 1.56, 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.97; PAE + MD + TD, 24% to 46%, RR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.37. The increase in rates did not differ between groups (P = .49). Similarly, rates of skin self-examinations increased significantly from baseline to 18 months in all three groups: PAE, 29% to 50%, RR, 1.75, 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.16; PAE + MD, 31% to 58%, RR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.26; PAE + MD + TD, 29% to 58%, RR, 1.95, 95% CI, 1.59 to 2.40, but the increase in rates did not differ between groups (P = .43). CONCLUSION Although skin cancer screening rates increased more than 1.5-fold in each of the intervention groups, there were no differences between groups. Any of these interventions, if implemented, could improve skin cancer prevention behaviors among childhood cancer survivors.
TL;DR: This article assessed vaping behaviors, environments, COVID-19 influences, and barriers and facilitators of existing approaches that address adolescent vaping in Massachusetts middle and high schools and found that the importance of educating adolescents on the harms of vaping and the move toward alternatives-to-suspension programs rather than disciplinary action.
Abstract: We assessed vaping behaviors, environments, COVID-19 influences, and barriers and facilitators of existing approaches that address adolescent vaping in Massachusetts middle and high schools. Findings from this study will provide considerations for individual schools or districts as they advance adolescent vaping prevention and treatment efforts. We analyzed 310 open-ended comments from Massachusetts school administrators who completed a survey between November 2020 and January 2021. Further, we analyzed nine semi-structured interviews with administrators (e.g., principals, vice principals, school nurses) from Massachusetts school systems (n = 6) and school-based anti-tobacco advocates (n = 3); interviews took place between May and December 2021. Informed by Green's PRECEDE model, we conducted a framework analysis using deductive codes based on the model constructs (enabling, reinforcing, and predisposing factors) and inductive codes of key themes emerging from the interviews. Challenges to addressing adolescent vaping included staff capacity, funding, and lack of mental health and counseling supports. The COVID-19 pandemic was a major barrier to conducting usual in-person vaping programs, but also reduced student vaping at school due to new social distancing practices and bathroom use policies. Facilitators of vaping interventions included peer-led initiatives and parental involvement. Participants discussed the importance of educating adolescents on the harms of vaping and the move toward alternatives-to-suspension programs rather than disciplinary action. School-based anti-vaping program implementers-such as school districts, state departments of education, or local health departments-will need to leverage facilitators such as peer-led initiatives, alternatives-to-suspension approaches, and parental involvement, to increase the potential impact of these programs.
TL;DR: The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) as discussed by the authors is a community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement.
Abstract: Abstract Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.
TL;DR: Kruse et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the issue of data sharing through a community-engaged research lens, informed by a long-standing partnership between community engaged researchers and a key community health organization and provided several recommendations that would allow better community engagement related to data sharing to ensure both community and researcher understanding of the issues involved and move toward shared benefits.
Abstract: Over the past 20 years, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) has implemented several policies designed to improve sharing of research data, such as the NIH public access policy for publications, NIH genomic data sharing policy, and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot public access and data sharing policy. In January 2023, a new NIH data sharing policy has gone into effect, requiring researchers to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan in proposals for NIH funding (NIH. Supplemental information to the, 2020b; NIH. Final policy for data, 2020a). These policies are based on the idea that sharing data is a key component of the scientific method, as it enables the creation of larger data repositories that can lead to research questions that may not be possible in individual studies (Alter and Gonzalez, 2018; Jwa and Poldrack, 2022), allows enhanced collaboration, and maximizes the federal investment in research. Important questions that we must consider as data sharing is expanded are to whom do benefits of data sharing accrue and to whom do benefits not accrue? In an era of growing efforts to engage diverse communities in research, we must consider the impact of data sharing for all research participants and the communities that they represent. We examine the issue of data sharing through a community-engaged research lens, informed by a long-standing partnership between community-engaged researchers and a key community health organization (Kruse et al., 2022). We contend that without effective community engagement and rich contextual knowledge, biases resulting from data sharing can remain unchecked. We provide several recommendations that would allow better community engagement related to data sharing to ensure both community and researcher understanding of the issues involved and move toward shared benefits. By identifying good models for evaluating the impact of data sharing on communities that contribute data, and then using those models systematically, we will advance the consideration of the community perspective and increase the likelihood of benefits for all.