Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Nurses play a crucial role in cancer control. Prior reviews presented the effectiveness of nursing interventions such as tobacco cessation counseling and cervical cancer screening but did not focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review addresses a gap in the literature by describing the roles and activities of nurses in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched seven databases using subject headings and keywords from 1990 to January 2021 and updated in April 2022. The reference lists of relevant studies were also searched. Two reviewers independently screened the relevance of studies through Rayyan, assessed full text articles, and extracted data using a Google Form. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: ​= ​9). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This scoping review provides a comprehensive picture of nurses' role in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs, across all six World Health Organization regions. Additional cancer workforce data sources at the country level are needed to fully understand the activities of nurses in cancer prevention. Future research is also needed to measure the impact of nursing educational and other interventions in both primary and secondary cancer prevention.

Objectives: Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients. Results: The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection. Conclusions: This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters. Innovation: To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. METHODOLOGY/METHODS:Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. RESULTS:African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries. CONCLUSIONS:There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer.

Importance:Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms. Objective:To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021. Exposures:Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings. Main Outcomes and Measures:Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level. Results:Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

BACKGROUND:The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS/RESULTS:We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS:The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

BACKGROUND:Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS/RESULTS:We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS:The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND:The Breast Health Initiative (BHI) was launched to demonstrate a scalable model to improve access to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. METHODS:A package of evidence-based interventions was codesigned and implemented with the stakeholders, as part of the national noncommunicable disease program, through the existing primary health care system. Data from the first 18 months of the BHI are presented. RESULTS:A total of 108,112 women received breast health education; 48% visited the health facilities for clinical breast examination (CBE), 3% had a positive CBE result, and 41% were referred to a diagnostic facility. The concordance of CBE findings between health care providers and adherence to follow-up care improved considerably, with more women visiting the diagnostic facilities and completing diagnostic evaluation within 1 month from initial screening, and with only 9% lost to follow-up. The authors observed a clinically meaningful decrease in time to complete diagnostic evaluation with biopsy, from 37 to 9 days. CONCLUSIONS:The results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing a large-scale, decentralized breast cancer early detection program delivered through the existing primary health care system in India.

 /UNASSIGNED:Population health management (PHM) is an important approach to promote wellness and deliver health care to targeted individuals who meet criteria for preventive measures or treatment. A critical component for any PHM program is a data analytics platform that can target those eligible individuals. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to design and implement a scalable standards-based clinical decision support (CDS) approach to identify patient cohorts for PHM and maximize opportunities for multi-site dissemination. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An architecture was established to support bidirectional data exchanges between heterogeneous electronic health record (EHR) data sources, PHM systems, and CDS components. HL7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and CDS Hooks were used to facilitate interoperability and dissemination. The approach was validated by deploying the platform at multiple sites to identify patients who meet the criteria for genetic evaluation of familial cancer. RESULTS:The Genetic Cancer Risk Detector (GARDE) platform was created and is comprised of four components: (1) an open-source CDS Hooks server for computing patient eligibility for PHM cohorts, (2) an open-source Population Coordinator that processes GARDE requests and communicates results to a PHM system, (3) an EHR Patient Data Repository, and (4) EHR PHM Tools to manage patients and perform outreach functions. Site-specific deployments were performed on onsite virtual machines and cloud-based Amazon Web Services. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:GARDE's component architecture establishes generalizable standards-based methods for computing PHM cohorts. Replicating deployments using one of the established deployment methods requires minimal local customization. Most of the deployment effort was related to obtaining site-specific information technology governance approvals.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:) is a major platform dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research relevant to populations with limited resources. To assess the success of its goals of encouraging global interaction and increasing MIC and LIC engagement, we analyzed authorship and readership patterns. METHODS:were identified using Google Analytics. The country of origin of each author and those who accessed the journal were categorized according to the 2019 income group World Bank Classification (WBC). RESULTS:in 2018. Corresponding authors came from 34 nations: 35% HIC, 47% MIC, and 18% LIC. The top publishing countries were the United States, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Article authors were solely from within one WBC group in 41% (23% HIC, 16% MIC, and 2% LIC). In those with mixed-WBC authorship origins, collaborations were 42% HIC + MIC, 11% HIC + LIC, and 6% HIC + MIC + LIC, but none with MIC + LIC. Regarding viewing, 87,860 views originated from 180 countries (82% of the WBC list): 35% HIC, 51% MIC, and 14% LIC. The most common accessing nations were the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Ethiopia. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:'s authorship comes from mixed WBC groups, with viewership extending to most of the world's nations. Areas to address are low level of LIC corresponding authors, few papers from authors across all WBC groups, no publications from MIC + LIC collaborations, and a low percentage of readership by LIC. These data provide focus to target interventions aimed at reducing the academic segregation of LIC and improving interactions across all WBC countries.