Neighborhood socio-economic disadvantage and race/ethnicity as predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the role of key individual- and community-level determinants to explore persisting racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. METHODS: We examined socio-demographic determinants and changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. In situ, local, regional, and distant diagnoses were examined by individual (age, race/ethnicity, and marital status) and community (income and education by zip code) characteristics. Community variables were constructed using the California Cancer Registry 1990-2000 and the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. RESULTS: From 1990 to 2000, there was an overall increase in the percent of in situ diagnoses and a significant decrease in regional and distant diagnoses. Among white and Asian/Pacific Islander women, a significant percent increase was observed for in situ diagnoses, and significant decreases in regional and distant diagnoses. Black women had a significant decrease in distant -stage diagnoses, and Hispanic women showed no significant changes in any diagnosis during this time period. The percent increase of in situ cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2000 was observed even among zip codes with low income and education levels. We also found a significant percent decrease in distant cases for the quartiles with the most poverty and least education. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic women showed the least improvement in breast cancer stage at diagnosis from 1990 to 2000. Breast cancer screening and education programs that target under-served communities, such as the rapidly growing Hispanic population, are needed in California

HIV testing among clients in high HIV prevalence venues: disparities between older and younger adults

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in AIDS care by Taylor & Francis in 2015.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing of every client presenting for services in venues where HIV prevalence is high. Because older adults (aged ≥50 years) have particularly poor prognosis if they receive their diagnosis late in the course of HIV disease, any screening provided to younger adults in these venues should also be provided to older adults. We examined aging-related disparities in recent (past 12 months) and ever HIV testing in a probability sample of at-risk adults (N = 1238) seeking services in needle exchange sites, sexually transmitted disease clinics, and Latino community clinics that provide HIV testing. Using multiple logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, we estimated associations between age category (<50 years vs. ≥50 years) and each HIV testing outcome. Even after controlling for covariates such as recent injection drug use, older adults had 40% lower odds than younger adults did of having tested in the past 12 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40-0.90) or ever (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.40-0.90). Aging-related disparities in HIV testing exist among clients of these high HIV prevalence venues and may contribute to known aging-related disparities in late diagnosis of HIV infection and poor long-term prognosis.This research was supported by a seed grant from the UCLA Center for Healthy Aging in Minority Elders, which is supported by the National Institute on Aging's Resource Centers on Minority Aging Research (P30-AG02-1684), and by funding from the National Institute on Mental Health (R01MH69087) awarded to Cunningham (PI) and Newman (Co-PI). Dr. Cunningham received partial support for his time from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA030781), the National Institute of Mental Health (R34 MH089719), National Institute on Minority Health and Human Development UCLA/ Charles R. Drew University Project EXPORT (P20 MD000182), and the National Institute on Aging (P30 AG021684). Dr. Lee's time for this manuscript was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (5K01MH085503). Additional support came from the California Center for Population Research, which is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (5R24HD041022)

Neighborhood socio-economic disadvantage and race/ethnicity as predictors of breast cancer stage at diagnosis

Abstract Background This study investigated the role of key individual- and community-level determinants to explore persisting racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. Methods We examined socio-demographic determinants and changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. In situ, local, regional, and distant diagnoses were examined by individual (age, race/ethnicity, and marital status) and community (income and education by zip code) characteristics. Community variables were constructed using the California Cancer Registry 1990-2000 and the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. Results From 1990 to 2000, there was an overall increase in the percent of in situ diagnoses and a significant decrease in regional and distant diagnoses. Among white and Asian/Pacific Islander women, a significant percent increase was observed for in situ diagnoses, and significant decreases in regional and distant diagnoses. Black women had a significant decrease in distant -stage diagnoses, and Hispanic women showed no significant changes in any diagnosis during this time period. The percent increase of in situ cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2000 was observed even among zip codes with low income and education levels. We also found a significant percent decrease in distant cases for the quartiles with the most poverty and least education. Conclusions Hispanic women showed the least improvement in breast cancer stage at diagnosis from 1990 to 2000. Breast cancer screening and education programs that target under-served communities, such as the rapidly growing Hispanic population, are needed in California

Endorsement of compulsory HIV vaccination policy among populations at high risk of HIV exposure (LA VOICES).

Compulsory vaccination is a frequently implemented policy option for ensuring comprehensive vaccine coverage. Ongoing controversies around human papillomavirus vaccine dissemination, and suboptimal coverage, suggest the value of assessing acceptability of compulsory vaccinations-particularly among likely target populations-in advance of their public availability to support evidence-informed interventions. With the first HIV vaccine to demonstrate partial efficacy in a large-scale clinical trial, we examined individual characteristics and attitudes associated with support for compulsory HIV vaccination policy among a diverse, representative sample of adults attending probable HIV vaccine dissemination venues in a large urban county. Participants were recruited using three-stage probability sampling from likely venues for future HIV vaccine dissemination. We used Audio-CASI to administer a 60-min structured questionnaire. Items included endorsement of compulsory HIV vaccination policy, sociodemographic characteristics, injecting drug use, vaccine attitudes and perceived HIV risk. Among 1,225 participants (mean age = 36.8&nbsp;years; 55.6&nbsp;% males, 37.6&nbsp;% non-English speaking Hispanic, 78.8&nbsp;% heterosexual, 25.7&nbsp;% injection drug users), almost half (48.2&nbsp;%) endorsed a compulsory HIV vaccination policy. Non-English speaking Hispanics compared to whites, participants with less than high school education, higher positive vaccine attitude scores and higher perceived HIV risk were significantly more likely, and people who inject drugs significantly less likely to endorse compulsory HIV vaccination. Public health interventions to promote positive vaccine attitudes and accurate perceptions of HIV risk among vulnerable populations, and strategies tailored for people who inject drugs, may build support for compulsory HIV vaccination policy and promote broad HIV vaccine coverage

Effects of a Laboratory Health Information Exchange Intervention on Antiretroviral Therapy Use, Viral Suppression, and Racial/Ethnic Disparities.

BackgroundAlthough antiretroviral therapy (ART) is available to treat HIV+ persons and prevent transmission, ineffective delivery of care may delay ART use, impede viral suppression (VS), and contribute to racial/ethnic disparities along the continuum of care. This study tested the effects of a bi-directional laboratory health information exchange (LHIE) intervention on each of these outcomes.MethodsWe used a quasi-experimental, interrupted time-series design to examine whether the LHIE intervention improved ART use and VS, and reduced racial/ethnic disparities in these outcomes among HIV+ patients (N = 1181) in a comprehensive HIV/AIDS clinic in Southern California. Main outcome measures were ART pharmacy fill and HIV viral load laboratory data extracted from the medical records over 3 years. Race/ethnicity and an indicator for the intervention (after vs. before) were the main predictors. The analysis involved 3-stage, multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations.ResultsOverall, the intervention predicted greater odds of ART use (odds ratio [OR] = 2.50; 95% confidence interval: 2.29 to 2.73; P &lt; 0.001) and VS (OR = 1.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.21; P &lt; 0.05) in the final models that included sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical covariates. Before the intervention, there were significant black/white disparities in ART use OR = 0.75 (0.58-0.98; P = 0.04) and VS OR = 0.75 (0.61-0.92; P = 0.001). After the intervention, the black/white disparities decreased after adjusting for sociodemographics and the number of HIV care visits, and Latinos had greater odds than whites of ART use and VS, adjusting for covariates.ConclusionsThe intervention improved overall ART treatment and VS, and reduced black/white disparities. LHIE interventions may hold promise if implemented among similar patients

Endorsement of compulsory HIV vaccination policy among populations at high risk of HIV exposure (LA VOICES).

Compulsory vaccination is a frequently implemented policy option for ensuring comprehensive vaccine coverage. Ongoing controversies around human papillomavirus vaccine dissemination, and suboptimal coverage, suggest the value of assessing acceptability of compulsory vaccinations-particularly among likely target populations-in advance of their public availability to support evidence-informed interventions. With the first HIV vaccine to demonstrate partial efficacy in a large-scale clinical trial, we examined individual characteristics and attitudes associated with support for compulsory HIV vaccination policy among a diverse, representative sample of adults attending probable HIV vaccine dissemination venues in a large urban county. Participants were recruited using three-stage probability sampling from likely venues for future HIV vaccine dissemination. We used Audio-CASI to administer a 60-min structured questionnaire. Items included endorsement of compulsory HIV vaccination policy, sociodemographic characteristics, injecting drug use, vaccine attitudes and perceived HIV risk. Among 1,225 participants (mean age = 36.8&nbsp;years; 55.6&nbsp;% males, 37.6&nbsp;% non-English speaking Hispanic, 78.8&nbsp;% heterosexual, 25.7&nbsp;% injection drug users), almost half (48.2&nbsp;%) endorsed a compulsory HIV vaccination policy. Non-English speaking Hispanics compared to whites, participants with less than high school education, higher positive vaccine attitude scores and higher perceived HIV risk were significantly more likely, and people who inject drugs significantly less likely to endorse compulsory HIV vaccination. Public health interventions to promote positive vaccine attitudes and accurate perceptions of HIV risk among vulnerable populations, and strategies tailored for people who inject drugs, may build support for compulsory HIV vaccination policy and promote broad HIV vaccine coverage

A participatory approach to evaluating a national training and institutional change initiative: the BUILD longitudinal evaluation.

Background and purposeThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds training programs to increase the numbers and skills of scientists who obtain NIH research grants, but few programs have been rigorously evaluated. The sizeable recent NIH investment in developing programs to increase the diversity of the NIH-funded workforce, implemented through the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), is unusual in that it also funds a Consortium-wide evaluation plan, which spans the activities of the 10 BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) awardees and the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). The purpose of this article is to describe the evaluation design and innovations of the BUILD Program on students, faculty, and institutions of the 10 primarily undergraduate BUILD sites.Key highlights of the projectOur approach to this multi-methods quasi-experimental longitudinal evaluation emphasizes stakeholder participation and collaboration. The evaluation plan specifies the major evaluation questions and key short- to long-term outcome measures (or Hallmarks of Success). The Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) embarked on a comprehensive evaluation strategy by developing a set of logic models that incorporate the Hallmarks of Success and other outcomes that were collaboratively identified by the DPC. Data were collected from each BUILD site through national surveys from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (HERI), annual followup surveys that align with the HERI instruments, site visits and case studies, program encounter data ("tracker" data), and institutional data. The analytic approach involves comparing changes in Hallmarks (key outcomes) within institutions for biomedical students who participated versus those who did not participate in the BUILD program at each institution, as well as between institution patterns of biomedical students at the BUILD sites, and matched institutions that were not BUILD grantees. Case studies provide insights into the institutionalization of these new programs and help to explain the processes that lead to the observed outcomes.ImplicationsUltimately, the results of the consortium-wide evaluation will be used to inform national policy in higher education and will provide relevant examples of institutional and educational programmatic changes required to diversify the biomedical workforce in the USA