Rachel C Shelton1, Laura E Brotzman1, Detric Johnson2, Deborah Erwin3. 1. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, New York, NY. 2. National Witness Project, Buffalo, NY. 3. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY.
Abstract
Objective: To understand barriers and facilitators to the adaptation of programs reflecting changing scientific guidelines for breast/cervical cancer screening, including factors influencing the de-implementation of messaging, program components, or screening practices no longer recommended due to new scientific evidence. Setting: National sample of NWP sites from across the United States. Design and Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods design in partnership with The National Witness Project (NWP), a nationally implemented evidence-based lay health advisor (LHA) program for breast/cervical cancer screening among African American (AA) women. Surveys were conducted among 201 project directors (PDs) and LHAs representing 14 NWP sites; in-depth interviews were conducted among 14 PDs to provide context to findings. Survey data and qualitative interviews were collected concurrently from January 2019-January 2020. Results: Trust and mistrust were important themes that arose in quantitative and qualitative data. Common concerns about adapting to new guidelines included: 1) perceptions that new guidelines misalign with the personal values and beliefs of AA women; 2) mistrust of guidelines, providers, medical organizations; 3) confusion about inconsistent guidelines and concern they are based on studies that don't reflect the experience of AA women (who experience more aggressive tumors at younger ages); and 4) belief that breast self-exam (BSE) is an empowerment tool for AA women and should be included to promote awareness, given many women discovered lumps/cancer through BSE. Conclusion: Findings highlight that trust and mistrust are important but understudied social determinants of health among AAs that should be considered in implementation science as they: 1) have critical implications for shaping health inequities; and 2) help explain and contextualize why new screening guidelines may not be fully embraced in the AA community.
Objective: To understand barriers and facilitators to the adaptation of programs reflecting changing scientific guidelines for breast/cervical cancer screening, including factors influencing the de-implementation of messaging, program components, or screening practices no longer recommended due to new scientific evidence. Setting: National sample of NWP sites from across the United States. Design and Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods design in partnership with The National Witness Project (NWP), a nationally implemented evidence-based lay health advisor (LHA) program for breast/cervical cancer screening among African American (AA) women. Surveys were conducted among 201 project directors (PDs) and LHAs representing 14 NWP sites; in-depth interviews were conducted among 14 PDs to provide context to findings. Survey data and qualitative interviews were collected concurrently from January 2019-January 2020. Results: Trust and mistrust were important themes that arose in quantitative and qualitative data. Common concerns about adapting to new guidelines included: 1) perceptions that new guidelines misalign with the personal values and beliefs of AA women; 2) mistrust of guidelines, providers, medical organizations; 3) confusion about inconsistent guidelines and concern they are based on studies that don't reflect the experience of AA women (who experience more aggressive tumors at younger ages); and 4) belief that breast self-exam (BSE) is an empowerment tool for AA women and should be included to promote awareness, given many women discovered lumps/cancer through BSE. Conclusion: Findings highlight that trust and mistrust are important but understudied social determinants of health among AAs that should be considered in implementation science as they: 1) have critical implications for shaping health inequities; and 2) help explain and contextualize why new screening guidelines may not be fully embraced in the AA community.
Authors: Kristen J Wells; John S Luque; Branko Miladinovic; Natalia Vargas; Yasmin Asvat; Richard G Roetzheim; Ambuj Kumar Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rachel C Shelton; Gary Winkel; Stacy N Davis; Nicole Roberts; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Simon J Hall; Hayley S Thompson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lawrence A Palinkas; Gregory A Aarons; Sarah Horwitz; Patricia Chamberlain; Michael Hurlburt; John Landsverk Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2011-01
Authors: Douglas A Luke; Annaliese Calhoun; Christopher B Robichaux; Michael B Elliott; Sarah Moreland-Russell Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jennifer D Allen; Shirley Morrison Bluethmann; Margaret Sheets; Kelly Morrison Opdyke; Kathryn Gates-Ferris; Marc Hurlbert; Elizabeth Harden Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Sheryl Zimmerman; Joseph Gaugler; Joseph Ouslander; Kathleen Abrahamson; Nicole Brandt; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Elizabeth Galik; Stefan Gravenstein; Lona Mody; Philip D Sloane; Kathleen Unroe; Hilde Verbeek Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Sheryl Zimmerman; Joseph Gaugler; Joseph Ouslander; Kathleen Abrahamson; Nicole Brandt; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Elizabeth Galik; Stefan Gravenstein; Lona Mody; Philip D Sloane; Kathleen Unroe; Hilde Verbeek Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 7.802
Authors: Ana A Baumann; Eva N Woodward; Rajinder Sonia Singh; Prajakta Adsul; Rachel C Shelton Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Susan E McCann; Elisa M Rodriguez; Deborah Erwin; Song Yao; David Tritchler; Meredith A J Hullar; Tracey O'Connor; Johanna W Lampe Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2022-01-29
Authors: Callie Walsh-Bailey; Edward Tsai; Rachel G Tabak; Alexandra B Morshed; Wynne E Norton; Virginia R McKay; Ross C Brownson; Sheyna Gifford Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: Rinad S Beidas; Shannon Dorsey; Cara C Lewis; Aaron R Lyon; Byron J Powell; Jonathan Purtle; Lisa Saldana; Rachel C Shelton; Shannon Wiltsey Stirman; Meghan B Lane-Fall Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Kea Turner; Alecia Clary; Young-Rock Hong; Oliver T Nguyen; Grace Wei; Rebecca B Carlson; Sarah A Birken Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 7.327