There are meaningful cancer-related disparities in the Appalachian region of the U.S. To address these disparities, the Appalachia Community Cancer Network (ACCN), a collaboration of investigators and community partners in five states (Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), is involved in increasing cancer education and awareness, conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR), and creating mentorship and training opportunities. The primary objective of this paper is to describe cancerrelated disparities in the Appalachian region of the U.S. as an example of the disparities experienced by underserved, predominantly white, rural populations, and to describe ACCN activities designed to intervene regarding these disparities. An ACCN overview/history and the diverse activities of ACCN-participating states are presented in an effort to suggest potential useful strategies for working to reduce health-related disparities in underserved white populations. Strengths that have emerged from the ACCN approach (e.g., innovative collaborations, long-standing established networks) and remaining challenges (e.g., difficulties with continually changing communities, scarce resources) are described. Important recommendations that have emerged from the ACCN are also presented, including the value of allowing communities to lead CBPR efforts. Characteris-
Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50–75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.
Background: Despite policies such as the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA) and Breast Cancer Patient Education Act, rates for breast reconstruction vary and are especially low for some subpopulations of patients, especially rural women. In order to better understand patient perceptions, qualitative analysis using focus groups is an underutilized tool for obtaining patient perspectives regarding health-related issues and access to care. Our aim was to better understand patient perceptions using qualitative analysis. Methods: Three focus groups were held in rural counties within West Virginia in order to better understand patient perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs regarding breast health, breast cancer, access to breast reconstruction, and how to disseminate and educate this patient population regarding their right to accessing breast reconstruction. Results: Major themes analyses revealed perceived barriers to care related to lacking care coordination, lack of insurance coverage and other resources, as well as issues related to transportation. Participants consistently discussed avoiding breast screening care due fear and denial in addition to pain. Few patients were aware of their right to accessing breast reconstruction per the WHCRA, and many were concerned about follow-up burden, complications, and general fear related to breast reconstruction. Themes related to dissemination of information to promote the option of breast reconstruction included social media, patient counseling by their referring physician, and other means of intervention in clinics and other points in the care coordination chain. Conclusions: Rural women have important, unique viewpoints regarding access to and perceived barriers from obtaining breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons must work diligently to educate, disseminate, and improve care coordination among this population in order to improve access to breast reconstruction among rural breast cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.