Randall Teal

What Evidence and Support Do State-Level Public Health Practitioners Need to Address Obesity Prevention:

Purpose. Obesity has reached epidemic proportions. Public health practitioners are distinctly positioned to promote the environmental changes essential to addressing obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other entities provide evidence and technical assistance to support this work, yet little is known about how practitioners use evidence and support as they intervene to prevent obesity. The studys purpose was to describe how practitioners and CDC project officers characterized the obesity prevention task, where practitioners accessed support and evidence, and what approaches to support and evidence they found most useful. Approach or Design. Mixed-methods, cross-sectional interviews, and survey. Setting. State-level public health obesity prevention programs. Participants. Public health practitioners and CDC project officers. Method. We conducted 10 in-depth interviews with public health practitioners (n = 7) and project officers (n = 3) followed by an online survey completed by 62 practitioners (50% response rate). We applied content analysis to interview data and descriptive statistics to survey data. Results. Practitioners characterized obesity prevention as uncertain and complex, involving interdependence among actors, multiple levels of activity, an excess of information, and a paucity of evidence. Survey findings provide further detail on the types of evidence and support practitioners used and valued. Conclusion. We recommend approaches to tailoring evidence and support to the needs of practitioners working on obesity prevention and other complex health problems.

Improving couples' quality of life through a Web-based prostate cancer education intervention.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed web-based, couple-oriented intervention called Prostate Cancer Education and Resources for Couples (PERC). DESIGN Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods approach. SETTING Oncology outpatient clinics at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at UNC–Chapel Hill. SAMPLE 26 patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) and their partners. METHODS Pre- and postpilot quantitative assessments and a postpilot qualitative interview were conducted. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES General and PCa-specific symptoms, quality of life, psychosocial factors, PERC’s ease of use, and web activities. FINDINGS Improvement was shown in some PCa-specific and general symptoms (small effect sizes for patients and small-to-medium effect sizes for partners), overall quality of life, and physical and social domains of quality of life for patients (small effect sizes). Web activity data indicated high PERC use. Qualitative and quantitative analyses indicated that participants found PERC easy to use and understand,as well as engaging, of high quality, and relevant. Overall, participants were satisfied with PERC and reported that PERC improved their knowledge about symptom management and communication as a couple. CONCLUSIONS PERC was a feasible, acceptable method of reducing the side effects of PCa treatment–related symptoms and improving quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PERC has the potential to reduce the negative impacts of symptoms and enhance quality of life for patients with localized PCa and their partners, particularly for those who live in rural areas and have limited access to post-treatment supportive care.

Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study

BackgroundSince 2003, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to restructure the clinical research enterprise in the United States by promoting collaborative research partnerships between academically-based investigators and community-based physicians. By increasing community-based provider participation in research (CBPPR), the NIH seeks to advance the science of discovery by conducting research in clinical settings where most people get their care, and accelerate the translation of research results into everyday clinical practice. Although CBPPR is seen as a promising strategy for promoting the use of evidence-based clinical services in community practice settings, few empirical studies have examined the organizational factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CBPPR. The purpose of this study is to explore the organizational start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in community-based practice.MethodsWe used longitudinal, case study research methods and an organizational model of innovation implementation to theoretically guide our study. Our sample consisted of three community practice settings that recently joined the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) in the United States. Data were gathered through site visits, telephone interviews, and archival documents from January 2008 to May 2011.ResultsThe organizational model for innovation implementation was useful in identifying and investigating the organizational factors influencing start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in CCOP organizations. In general, the three CCOP organizations varied in the extent to which they achieved consistency in CBPPR over time and across physicians. All three CCOP organizations demonstrated mixed levels of organizational readiness for change. Hospital management support and resource availability were limited across CCOP organizations early on, although they improved in one CCOP organization. As a result of weak IPPs, all three CCOPs created a weak implementation climate. Patient accrual became concentrated over time among those groups of physicians for whom CBPPR exhibited a strong innovation-values fit. Several external factors influenced innovation use, complicating and enriching our intra-organizational model of innovation implementation.ConclusionOur results contribute to the limited body of research on the implementation of CBPPR. They inform policy discussions about increasing and sustaining community clinician involvement in clinical research and expand on theory about organizational determinants of implementation effectiveness.

A community-academic partnership to plan and implement an evidence-based lay health advisor program for promoting breast cancer screening.

Despite a growing body of evidence concerning effective approaches to increasing breast cancer screening, the gap between research and practice continues. The North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program (NC-BCSP) is an example of an evidence-based intervention that uses trained lay health advisors (LHA) to promote breast cancer screening. Partnerships that link academic researchers knowledgeable about specific evidence-based programs with community-based practitioners offer a model for increasing their use. This article describes a partnership between CrossWorks, Inc., a community-based organization, and the UNC-CH Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in planning and implementing an evidence-based program for promoting breast cancer screening among older African American women in rural eastern North Carolina communities. We used in-depth interviews to explore the relationship of the partnership to the activities that were undertaken to launch the evidence-based program.

Connecting Community With Campus to Address Cancer Health Disparities: A Community Grants Program Model

Background: With growing interest in the CBPR approach to cancer health disparities research, mechanisms are needed to support adherence to its principles. The Carolina Community Network (CCN), 1 of 25 Community Network Programs funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), developed a model for providing funds to community-based organizations. Objectives: This paper presents the rationale and structure of a Community Grants Program (CGP) model, describes the steps taken to implement the program, and discusses the lessons learned and recommendations for using the grants model for CBPR. Methods: Three types of projects—cancer education, implementation of an evidence-based intervention, and the development of community–academic research partnerships—could be supported by a community grant. The CGP consists of four phases: Pre-award, peer-review process, post-award, and project implementation. Results: The CGP serves as a catalyst for developing and maintaining community–academic partnerships through its incorporation of CBPR principles. Conclusions: Providing small grants to community-based organizations can identify organizations to serve as community research partners, fostering the CBPR approach in the development of community–academic partnerships by sharing resources and building capacity.

Promoting community practitioners' use of evidence-based approaches to increase breast cancer screening.

Many women do not get mammography screenings at the intervals recommended for early detection and treatment of breast cancer. The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) recommends a range of evidence-based strategies to improve mammography rates. However, nurses and others working in community-based settings make only limited use of these strategies. We report on a dissemination intervention that partnered the University of North Carolina with the Susan G. Komen Triangle Affiliate to disseminate Community Guide breast cancer screening strategies to community organizations. The intervention was guided by social marketing and diffusion of innovation theory and was designed to provide evidence and support via Komens existing relationships with grantee organizations. The present study reports the findings from a formative evaluation of the intervention, which included a content analysis of 46 grant applications pre- and post intervention and focus groups with 20 grant recipients.

Perceptions of Cancer Clinical Research Among African American Men in North Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the men and women who participated in our Focus Groups and shared with us their very personal cancer experience. Their insight is valuable, and will inform and improve cancer care for future generations. The authors thank the Greensboro area Community Research Advocates - especially April Durr, Elvira Mebane, Marie McAdoo, Kathy Norcott, and Cindy Taylor - who assisted in the conduct of the study, including interpretation of results. They also thank Gratia Wright of First Research Group for her expertise in moderating and executing all of the focus groups, and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow for her assistance in responding to reviewer comments. The study was funded as a part of the Carolina Community Network program, funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (U01-CA114629). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. OBJECTIVE The problem of cancer health disparities is substantial. Clinical trials are widely advocated as a means of reducing disparities and bringing state-of-the-art care to the broader community, where most cancer care is delivered. This study sought to develop a better understanding of why disproportionately few African American men enroll in clinical trials given their substantial cancer burden. DESIGN This study applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods to design and conduct four focus groups of African American male cancer survivors and their caregivers in North Carolina. RESULTS Among major themes, participants expressed confusion about the relationship between clinical trials, treatment, and research: signifying patient confusion and misinterpretation of common clinical trial terminology. Social norms including gender barriers and generational differences remain problematic; participants often reported that men do not talk about health issues, are unwilling to go to the doctor, and exhibit misapprehension and distrust regarding trials. Participants perceived this misunderstanding as detrimental to community health and expressed the need for more clarity in clinical trials information and a more fundamental social openness and communication about cancer detection and treatment. CONCLUSION Findings indicate the importance of clinical trial education in both traditional provider referral to trials and also in general patient navigation. To dispel pervasive misapprehension regarding placebos, clinical trial information should emphasize the role of standard care in modern cancer treatment trials. Many participants described willingness to participate in a trial upon physician recommendation, suggesting merit in improving patient-physician communication through culturally competent terminology and trial referral systems.

Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012–2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers

Introduction Practice facilitation involves trained individuals working with practice staff to conduct quality improvement activities and support delivery of evidence-based clinical services. We examined the feasibility of using practice facilitation to assist federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in North Carolina. Methods The intervention consisted of 12 months of facilitation in 3 FQHCs. We conducted chart audits to obtain data on changes in documented recommendation for colorectal cancer screening and completed screening. Key informant interviews provided qualitative data on barriers to and facilitators of implementing office systems. Results Overall, the percentage of eligible patients with a documented colorectal cancer screening recommendation increased from 15% to 29% (P < .001). The percentage of patients up to date with colorectal cancer screening rose from 23% to 34% (P = .03). Key informants in all 3 clinics said the implementation support from the practice facilitator was critical for initiating or improving office systems and that modifying the electronic medical record was the biggest challenge and most time-consuming aspect of implementing office systems changes. Other barriers were staff turnover and reluctance on the part of local gastroenterology practices to perform free or low-cost diagnostic colonoscopies for uninsured or underinsured patients. Conclusion Practice facilitation is a feasible, acceptable, and promising approach for supporting universal colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs. A larger-scale study is warranted.

Applying Cognitive Interviewing to Inform Measurement of Partnership Readiness: A New Approach to Strengthening Community–Academic Research

Background: Partnerships between academic and community-based organizations (CBOs) can richly inform the research process and speed translation of findings. Although immense potential exists to co-conduct research, a better understanding of how to create and sustain equitable relationships between entities with different organizational goals, structures, resources, and expectations is needed.Objective: We sought to engage community leaders in the development of an instrument to assess CBOs’ interest and capacity to engage with academia in translational research partnerships.Methods: Leaders from CBOs partnered with our research team in the design of a 50-item instrument to assess organizational experience with applying for federal funding and conducting research studies. Respondents completed a self-administered, paper/pencil survey and a follow-up structured cognitive interview (n = 11). A community advisory board (CAB; n = 8) provided further feedback on the survey through guided discussion. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews and a summary of the CAB discussion informed survey revisions.Results: Cognitive interviews and discussion with community leaders identified language and measurement issues for revision. Importantly, they also revealed an unconscious bias on the part of researchers and offered an opportunity, at an early research stage, to address imbalances in the survey perspective and to develop a more collaborative, equitable approach.Conclusions: Engaging community leaders enhanced face and content validity and served as a means to form relationships with potential community co-investigators in the future. Cognitive interviewing can enable a bidirectional approach to partnerships, starting with instrument development.

Establishing a Minority-Based Community Clinical Oncology Program: The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School–University Hospital Cancer Center Experience

The Minority-Based Community Clinical Oncology Program (MB-CCOP) at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School-University Hospital Cancer Center was established to serve an unmet need in a medically, educationally, and socioeconomically underserved community of primarily African American and Latino patients in Newark and Essex County, New Jersey. The MB-CCOP was built on an existing infrastructure of multidisciplinary teams of cancer specialists who collaborated in patient care and an existing clinical research program, which included multilingual staff and a breast cancer navigator. This article highlights some of the unique opportunities and challenges involved in the startup of an MB-CCOP specifically relevant to an academic setting. We present a guide to the necessary infrastructure and institutional support that must be in place before considering such a program and some of the steps an institution can take to overcome barriers preventing successful enrollment of patients onto clinical trials.