Advancing engagement and capacity for rural cancer control: a mixed-methods case study of a Community-Academic Advisory Board in the Appalachia region of Southwest Virginia

Abstract

Background The objectives are to: 1) describe engagement processes used to prioritize and address regional comprehensive cancer control needs among a Community-Academic Advisory Board (CAB) in the medically-underserved, rural Appalachian region, and 2) detail longitudinal CAB evaluation findings. Methods This three-year case study (2017–2020) used a convergent parallel, mixed-methods design. The approach was guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, the Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation process, and Nine Habits of Successful Comprehensive Cancer Control Coalitions. Meeting artifacts were tracked and evaluated. CAB members completed quantitative surveys at three time points and semi-structured interviews at two time points. Quantitative data were analyzed using analysis of variance tests. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via an inductive-deductive process. Results Through 13 meetings, Prevention and Early Detection Action Teams created causal models and prioritized four cancer control needs: human papillomavirus vaccination, tobacco control, colorectal cancer screening, and lung cancer screening. These sub-groups also began advancing into planning and intervention proposal development phases. As rated by 49 involved CAB members, all habits significantly improved from Time 1 to Time 2 (i.e., communication, priority work plans, roles/accountability, shared decision making, value-added collaboration, empowered leadership, diversified funding, trust, satisfaction; all p < .05), and most remained significantly higher at Time 3. CAB members also identified specific challenges (e.g., fully utilizing member expertise), strengths (e.g., diverse membership), and recommendations across habits. Conclusion This project’s equity-based CBPR approach used a CPPE process in conjunction with internal evaluation of cancer coalition best practices to advance CAB efforts to address cancer disparities in rural Appalachia. This approach encouraged CAB buy-in and identified key strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that will lay the foundation for continued involvement in cancer control projects. These engagement processes may serve as a template for similar coalitions in rural, underserved areas.

Community advisory board members’ perspectives on their contributions to a large multistate cluster RCT: a mixed methods study

“…Given the importance of communication for facilitation and for building a true partnership highlighted in prior CAB research [ 13 , 14 ], significant efforts should be focused on creating individualized, targeted connections between CAB members, with facilitators and the broader research staff. As evidenced in this study, the creation of opportunities for individual and small group interactions between CAB and research team members improved members’ feelings of engagement and influence [ 29 ].…”

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

“…The ACCN engages community members, healthcare providers, and researchers to identify community needs, develop interventions, and evaluate their effectiveness. Through CBPR, the ACCN has implemented community education programs, screening initiatives, and survivorship support services to reduce PCa disparities in the Appalachian region [210]. CBPR has been instrumental in the development of survivorship programs for individuals living with PCa.…”