The Utility of Cancer-Related Cultural Constructs to Understand Colorectal Cancer Screening Among African Americans

Data suggest that colorectal cancer could be cut by approximately 60% if all people aged 50 years or older received regular screening. Studies have identified socio-cultural attitudes that might inform cancer education and screening promotion campaigns. This article applies item response theory (IRT) to a set of survey items selected to assess sociocultural attitudes in order to determine how current measures may affect what we know about how these attitudes affect colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Design and Methods. A survey of colorectal cancer screening, screening attitudes and cultural beliefs was administered to 1021 African Americans - 683 women and 338 men, ages 50 to 75. Eligibility criteria for participation included being born in the United States, selfidentified African American male or female, age 50 to 75 years. The IRT analysis was performed on 655 individuals with complete data for the 43 observed variables. Results. Twenty-nine items comprise the Multi-construct African American Cultural Survey (MAACS) that addresses seven cultural constructs: mistrust/distrust, privacy, ethnic identity, collectivism, empowerment, and male gender roles. The items provide adequate information about the attitudes of the population across most levels of the constructs assessed. Among the sociocultural variables considered, empowerment (OR=1.078; 95% CI: 1.008, 1.151) had the strongest association with CRCS adherence and privacy showed promise. Conclusions. The MAACS provides a fixed length questionnaire to assess African American CRCS attitudes, two new constructs that might assist in CRCS promotion, and a suggested focus for identification of additional constructs of interest

A tale of two community networks program centers: Operationalizing and assessing CBPR principles and evaluating partnership outcomes

BACKGROUND: Community Networks Program (CNP) centers are required to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach within their specific priority communities. Not all communities are the same and unique contextual factors and collaborators’ priorities shape each CBPR partnership. There are also established CBPR and community engagement (CE) principles shown to lead to quality CBPR in any community. However, operationalizing and assessing CBPR principles and partnership outcomes to understand the conditions and processes in CBPR that lead to achieving program and project level goals is relatively new in the science of CBPR. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe the development of surveys on adherence to and implementation of CBPR/CE principles at two CNP centers and examine commonalities and differences in program- versus project-level CBPR evaluation. METHODS: A case study about the development and application of CBPR/CE principles for the Missouri CNP, Program for the Elimination of Cancer Disparities, and Minnesota CNP, Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados, surveys was conducted to compare project versus program operationalization of principles. Survey participant demographics were provided by CNP. Specific domains found in CBPR/CE principles were identified and organized under an existing framework to establish a common ground. Operational definitions and the number of survey items were provided for each domain by CNP. CONCLUSION: There are distinct differences in operational definitions of CBPR/CE principles at the program and project levels of evaluation. However, commonalities support further research to develop standards for CBPR evaluation across partnerships and at the program and project levels