Eugenia Eng’s research while affiliated with University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and other places

Background: While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence 6 years or longer) CBPR partnerships. Objectives: The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Methods: This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success, a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined "success" and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semistructured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships. Results: The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership's work and of ongoing relationships among partners. Conclusions: Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

Background: While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence ≥ 6 years) CBPR partnerships. Objectives: The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Methods: This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined "success" and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships. Results: The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership's work and of ongoing relationships among partners. Conclusions: Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

Background:: While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence ≥ 6 years) CBPR partnerships. Objectives:: The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Methods:: This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined “success” and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships. Results:: The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership’s work and of ongoing relationships among partners. Conclusions:: Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

There are persistent disparities in the delivery of cancer treatment, with Black patients receiving fewer of the recommended cancer treatment cycles than their White counterparts on average. To enhance racial equity in cancer care, innovative methods that apply antiracist principles to health promotion interventions are needed. The parent study for the current analysis, the Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) intervention, was a system-change intervention that successfully eliminated the Black–White disparity in cancer treatment completion among patients with early-stage breast and lung cancer. The intervention included specially trained nurse navigators who leveraged real-time data to follow-up with patients during their treatment journeys. Community and academic research partners conducted thematic analysis on all clinical notes (n = 3,251) written by ACCURE navigators after each contact with patients in the specialized navigation arm (n = 162). Analysis was informed by transparency and accountability, principles adapted from the antiracist resource Undoing Racism ® and determined as barriers to treatment completion through prior research that informed ACCURE. We identified six themes in the navigator notes that demonstrated enhanced accountability of the care system to patient needs. Underlying these themes was a process of enhanced data transparency that allowed navigators to provide tailored patient support. Themes include (1) patient-centered advocacy, (2) addressing system barriers to care, (3) connection to resources, (4) re-engaging patients after lapsed treatment, (5) addressing symptoms and side effects, and (6) emotional support. Future interventions should incorporate transparency and accountability mechanisms and examine the impact on racial equity in cancer care.

PURPOSE Timely lung cancer surgery is a metric of high-quality cancer care and improves survival for early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. Historically, Black patients experience longer delays to surgery than White patients and have lower survival rates. Antiracism interventions have shown benefits in reducing racial disparities in lung cancer treatment. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity, an antiracism prospective pragmatic trial, at five cancer centers to assess the impact on overall timeliness of lung cancer surgery and racial disparities in timely surgery. The intervention consisted of (1) a real-time warning system to identify unmet care milestones, (2) race-specific feedback on lung cancer treatment rates, and (3) patient navigation. The primary outcome was surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using log-binomial regression and adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS A total of 2,363 patients with stage I and II non–small-cell lung cancer were included in the analyses: intervention (n = 263), retrospective control (n = 1,798), and concurrent control (n = 302). 87.1% of Black patients and 85.4% of White patients in the intervention group ( P = .13) received surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis compared with 58.7% of Black patients and 75.0% of White patients in the retrospective group ( P < .01) and 64.9% of Black patients and 73.2% of White patients ( P = .29) in the concurrent group. Black patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive timely surgery than Black patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.64). White patients in the intervention group also had timelier surgery than White patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.18). CONCLUSION Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is associated with timelier lung cancer surgery and reduction of the racial gap in timely surgery.

Background: Community-engaged research is a well-established approach to tackling health disparities in communities of color. However, the devastation caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) calls for a reexamination of the practice of community-engaged research. Syndemic framework characterizes the clustering and synergistic interactions between two or more diseases amid an underlay of social and environmental threats. This framework has been used to explain the disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19 in communities of color and may have utility in guiding future community-engaged research. Objectives: This article describes the process by which a syndemic framework was used to generate discussions on lessons learned from COVID-19 and describes the ensuing collaborative writing process that emerged from this discourse. Methods: This article was developed by the Community Engagement Working Group (CEWG) of the Jackson Heart Study, a community-based epidemiologic study focused on cardiovascular disease among African Americans in the Jackson, Mississippi Metropolitan Area. By drawing upon a syndemic framework and lessons from COVID-19, the CEWG identified gaps and opportunities to enhance community-engaged research. Conclusions: Using syndemic framework as a starting point, the CEWG identified the following as aspects of community-engaged research that may warrant further consideration: 1) the need to examine multiple dimensions and assets of a community, 2) the need to view communities through an intersectionality lens, 3) the need to acknowledge the impact of historical and current trauma on the community, and 4) the need to provide support to community-engaged researchers who may be members of minoritized groups themselves and therefore, experience similar trauma.

The abundance of literature documenting the impact of racism on health disparities requires additional theoretical, statistical, and conceptual contributions to illustrate how anti-racist interventions can be an important strategy to reduce racial inequities and improve population health. Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE) was an NIH-funded intervention that utilized an antiracism lens and community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches to address Black-White disparities in cancer treatment completion. ACCURE emphasized change at the institutional level of healthcare systems through two primary principles of antiracism organizing: transparency and accountability. ACCURE was successful in eliminating the treatment completion disparity and improved completion rates for breast and lung cancer for all participants in the study. The structural nature of the ACCURE intervention creates an opportunity for applications in other health outcomes, as well as within educational institutions that represent social determinants of health. We are focusing on the maternal healthcare and K-12 education systems in particular because of the dire racial inequities faced by pregnant people and school-aged children. In this article, we hypothesize cross-systems translation of a system-level intervention exploring how key characteristics of ACCURE can be implemented in different institutions. Using core elements of ACCURE (i.e., community partners, milestone tracker, navigator, champion, and racial equity training), we present a framework that extends ACCURE's approach to the maternal healthcare and K-12 school systems. This framework provides practical, evidence-based antiracism strategies that can be applied and evaluated in other systems to address widespread structural inequities.

101 Background: Racial disparities are well described in the management of early-stage lung cancer, with Black patients less likely to receive potentially curative surgery than non-Hispanic Whites. A multi-site pragmatic trial entitled Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE), designed in collaboration with community partners, eliminated racial disparities in lung cancer surgery through a multi-component intervention. The study involved real-time electronic health record (EHR) monitoring to identify patients not receiving recommended care, a nurse navigator who reviewed and addressed EHR alerts daily, and race-specific feedback provided to clinical teams. Timeliness of cancer care is an important quality metric. Delays can lead to disease progression, upstaging, and worse survival, and Black patients are more likely to experience longer wait times to lung cancer surgery. Yet interventions to reduce racial disparities in timely delivery of lung cancer surgery have not been well studied. We evaluated the effect of ACCURE on timely receipt of lung cancer surgery. Methods: We analyzed data of a retrospective cohort at five cancer centers gathered prior to the ACCURE intervention and compared results with prospective data collected during the intervention. We calculated mean time from clinical suspicion of lung cancer to surgery and evaluated the proportion of patients who received surgery within 60 days stratified by race. We performed a t-test to compare mean days to surgery and chi ² for the delivery of surgery within 60 days. Results: 1320 patients underwent surgery in the retrospective arm, 160 were Black. 254 patients received surgery in the intervention arm, 85 were Black. Results are summarized in Table. Mean time to surgery in the retrospective cohort was 41.8 days, compared with 25.5 days in the intervention cohort (p<0.01). In the retrospective cohort, 68.8% of Black patients received surgery within 60 days versus 78.9% of White patients (p<0.01). In the intervention, the difference between Blacks and Whites with respect to surgery within 60 days was no longer significant (89.41% of Black patients vs 94.67% of White patients, p=0.12). Conclusions: Racial disparities exist in the delivery of timely lung cancer surgery. The ACCURE intervention improved time to surgery and timeliness of surgery for Black and White patients with early-stage lung cancer. A combination of real-time EHR monitoring, nurse navigation, and race-based feedback markedly reduced racial disparities in timely lung cancer care. [Table: see text]