Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: does it work for Indigenous Australians?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a lower incidence of bowel cancer overall, Indigenous Australians are more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage when prognosis is poor. Bowel cancer screening is an effective means of reducing incidence and mortality from bowel cancer through early identification and prompt treatment. In 2006, Australia began rolling out a population-based National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) using the Faecal Occult Blood Test. Initial evaluation of the program revealed substantial disparities in bowel cancer screening uptake with Indigenous Australians significantly less likely to participate in screening than the non-Indigenous population.</p> <p>This paper critically reviews characteristics of the program which may contribute to the discrepancy in screening uptake, and includes an analysis of organisational, structural, and socio-cultural barriers that play a part in the poorer participation of Indigenous and other disadvantaged and minority groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search was undertaken of peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, and other grey literature using electronic databases and citation snowballing. Articles were critically evaluated for relevance to themes that addressed the research questions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The NBCSP is not reaching many Indigenous Australians in the target group, with factors contributing to sub-optimal participation including how participants are selected, the way the screening kit is distributed, the nature of the test and comprehensiveness of its contents, cultural perceptions of cancer and prevailing low levels of knowledge and awareness of bowel cancer and the importance of screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the population-based approach to implementing bowel cancer screening to the Australian population unintentionally excludes vulnerable minorities, particularly Indigenous and other culturally and linguistically diverse groups. This potentially contributes to exacerbating the already widening disparities in cancer outcomes that exist among Indigenous Australians. Modifications to the program are recommended to facilitate access and participation by Indigenous and other minority populations. Further research is also needed to understand the needs and social and cultural sensitivities of these groups around cancer screening and inform alternative approaches to bowel cancer screening.</p

A Telehealth Diabetes Intervention for Rural Populations: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundDiabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is a crucial component of diabetes care associated with improved clinical, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes. The American Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend DSMES yet accessing linguistically and culturally appropriate DSMES is challenging in rural areas. The Diabetes One-Day (D1D) program is an established DSMES group intervention that has not been adapted or evaluated in rural communities. ObjectiveThe specific aims of this paper are (1) to adapt the existing D1D program for use in rural communities, called rural D1D (R-D1D); and (2) to conduct a patient-level randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of R-D1D and standard patient education, guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. MethodsThis is a protocol for a pilot type II hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a culturally adapted virtual DSMES program for rural populations, R-D1D. We will use Boot Camp Translation, a process grounded in the principles of community-based participatory research, to adapt an existing DSMES program for rural populations, in both English and Spanish. Participants at 2 rural primary care clinics (4 cohorts of N=16 plus care partners, 2 in English and 2 in Spanish) will be randomized to the intervention or standard education control. The evaluation is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Patient-level effectiveness outcomes (hemoglobin A1c, diabetes distress, and diabetes self-care behaviors) will be assessed using patient-reported outcomes measures and a home A1c test kit. Practice-level and patient-level acceptability and feasibility will be assessed using surveys and interviews. ResultsThis study is supported by the National Institute of Nursing. The study procedures were approved, and the adaptation processes have been completed. Recruitment and enrollment started in July 2021. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this will be the first study to evaluate both effectiveness and implementation outcomes for virtually delivered DSMES, culturally adapted for rural populations. This research has implications for delivery to other rural locations where access to specialty diabetes care is limited. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04600622; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04600622 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/3425

Informing a Randomized Control Trial in Rural Populations: Adaptation of a Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support Intervention

BackgroundOver 34 million people in the United States have diabetes, with 1.5 million diagnosed every year. Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) is a crucial component of treatment to delay or prevent complications. Rural communities face many unique challenges in accessing DSMES, including geographic barriers and availability of DSMES programs that are culturally adapted to rural context. ObjectiveBoot Camp Translation (BCT) is an established approach to community-based participatory research used to translate complex clinical and scientific information into concepts, messages, and materials that are understandable, meaningful, and relevant to community members and patients. This study aimed to utilize BCT to adapt an existing DSMES program for delivery in rural primary care for English- and Spanish-speaking people with diabetes. MethodsThe High Plains Research Network (HPRN) Community Advisory Council (C.A.C.) partnered with researchers at the University of Colorado and University of Utah to use BCT to aid in translating medical jargon and materials from an existing DSMES program, called “Diabetes One Day (D1D).” BCT consisted of 10 virtual meetings over a 6-month period among the C.A.C., which included 15 diverse community stakeholders. Both English-speaking and bilingual Spanish-English–speaking C.A.C. members were recruited to reflect the diversity of the rural communities in which the adapted program would be delivered. ResultsThe BCT process guided adaptations to D1D for use in rural settings (R-D1D). R-D1D adaptations reflect both content and delivery to assure that the intervention is appropriate and likely to be accepted by rural English- and Spanish-speaking people with diabetes. Additionally, BCT informed the design of recruitment and program materials and identification of recruitment venues. During the BCT process, the importance of tailoring materials to reflect culture differences in English- and Spanish-speaking patients was identified. ConclusionsBCT was an effective strategy for academic researchers to partner with rural community members to adapt an existing DSMES intervention for delivery in rural areas to both English- and Spanish-speaking patients with diabetes. Through BCT, adaptations to recruitment materials and methods, program content and delivery, and supplemental materials were developed. The need to culturally adapt Spanish materials with input from stakeholders rather than simply translate materials into Spanish was highlighted. The importance of increasing awareness of the connection between diabetes and depression or diabetes distress, adaptations to include local foods, and the importance of the relationship between people with diabetes and their primary care practices were identified

A randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative-effectiveness trial comparing medication-assisted treatment induction methods in primary care practices: The HOMER study protocol.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) represents a public health crisis in the United States. Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) with buprenorphine in primary care is a proven OUD treatment strategy. MOUD induction is when patients begin withdrawal and receive the first doses of buprenorphine. Differences between induction methods might influence short-term stabilization, long-term maintenance, and quality of life. This paper describes the protocol for a study designed to: (1) compare short-term stabilization and long-term maintenance treatment engagement in MOUD in patients receiving office, home, or telehealth induction and (2) identify clinically-relevant practice and patient characteristics associated with successful long-term treatment. The study design is a randomized, parallel group, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of three care models of MOUD induction in 100 primary care practices in the United States. Eligible patients are at least 16 years old, have been identified by their clinician as having opioid dependence and would benefit from MOUD. Patients will be randomized to one of three induction comparators: office, home, or telehealth induction. Primary outcomes are buprenorphine medication-taking and illicit opioid use at 30, 90, and 270 days post-induction. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and potential mediators of treatment maintenance (intentions, planning, automaticity). Potential moderators include social determinants of health, substance use history and appeal, and executive function. An intent to treat analysis will assess effects of the interventions on long-term treatment, using general/generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for covariates, for the outcomes analysis. Analysis includes practice- and patient-level random effects for hierarchical/longitudinal data. No large-scale, randomized comparative effectiveness research has compared home induction to office or telehealth MOUD induction on long-term outcomes for patients with OUD seen in primary care settings. The results of this study will offer primary care providers evidence and guidance in selecting the most beneficial induction method(s) for specific patients