Center for Community Health Education Research and Service

It was once said, “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin, 1952, p. 169) and yet Community Psychology (CP) as a practical discipline is beset with a theory-practice gulf that does not appear to be narrowing. The article by Jason, Stevens, Ram, Miller, Beasley, and Gleason (2016) plays a commendable role in outlining the challenges faced by community-based researchers and practitioners in developing, testing and utilizing theoretical approaches that could reliably benefit the health and well-being of target groups in a community. Quite rightly, Jason et al. (2016) have acknowledged that theories used in the field of CP should more accurately be termed as frameworks, rather than constituting actual theories, since theories would be expected to offer a comprehensive methodology for explaining and predicting behaviors in a range of settings. And herein lies the problem… Should the CP discipline be aimed at transposing findings, and theories, developed from research conducted in one type of social environment to a host of other potentially similar social settings? Researchers and practitioners alike may experience tensions in attempting to replicate an intervention, based on a theory, with other samples and settings. There are recent worrying trends from one study to show that with “the current (selective) publication system [in academic journals], replications may increase bias in effect size estimates” (Nuijten, et al., 2015, p.172). Likewise, we find there is a tendency in academia to avoid publishing non-significant findings (Franco, Malhotra, & Simonvits, 2014), even though a more honest and transparent approach to theory development and testing in CP would be through registration of hypotheses before a study has commenced, just as Jason et al. (2016) have endorsed. This would certainly be a way forward, but until funding agencies and academic journals are unified in their insistence for all a priori hypotheses to be communicated prior to conducting a study, this may be only one way to build theories that are trustworthy in the field of CP.

Participatory research approaches can help ensure research is culturally relevant and aligned with stakeholder priorities, but barriers exist between researchers and community stakeholders, particularly in communities of color. We developed a measurement tool for assessing oncology researcher and provider readiness to undertake patient-engaged research, and piloted this measurement tool among oncology researchers and providers at the hospital's cancer care center. A survey was developed by drawing from existing PCORI assessments as well as creating original questions, in an effort to develop an evidence-based survey tailored to this project. A total of 23 researchers and providers responded to the survey. The majority of respondents indicated that they were moderately or very familiar with the concept of patient-centered outcomes research. Most respondents had little to no experience engaging in participatory research and endorsed several barriers to engaging patients in the research process, including lack of experience and time. A mechanism for preparing and supporting researchers and providers is needed if cancer centers are to implement patient-powered research agendas as recommended by PCORI.

Despite efforts to ameliorate disparities in cancer care and clinical trials, barriers persist. As part of a multiphase community-engaged assessment, an exploratory community-engaged research partnership, forged between an academic hospital and a community-based organization, set out to explore perceptions of cancer care and cancer clinical trials by black Bostonians. Key informant interviews with health care providers and patient advocates in community health centers (CHCs), organizers from grassroots coalitions focused on cancer, informed the development of a focus group protocol. Six focus groups were conducted with black residents in Boston, including groups of cancer survivors and family members. Transcripts were coded thematically and a code-based report was generated and analyzed by community and academic stakeholders. While some participants identified clinical trials as beneficial, overall perceptions conjured feelings of fear and exploitation. Participants describe barriers to clinical trial participation in the context of cancer care experiences, which included negative interactions with providers and mistrust. Primary care physicians (PCPs) reported being levied as a trusted resource for patients undergoing care, but lamented the absence of a mechanism by which to gain information about cancer care and clinical trials. Confusion about cancer care and clinical trials persists, even among individuals who have undergone treatment for cancer. Greater coordination between PCPs and CHC care teams and oncology care teams may improve patient experiences with cancer care, while also serving as a mechanism to disseminate information about treatment options and clinical trials. Inequities in cancer care and clinical trial participation persist. The findings of this study indicate that greater coordination with primary care physicians (PCPs) and community health center (CHC) providers may be an important step for both improving the quality of cancer care in communities and increasing awareness of clinical trials. However, PCPs and CHCs are often stretched to capacity with caring for their communities. This leaves the oncology community well positioned to create programs to bridge the communication gaps and provide resources necessary to support oncologic care along the cancer continuum, from prevention through survivorship.

e17536 Background: In Boston, Massachusetts, disparities persist for Black residents across many chronic conditions including cancer. To assess perceptions in the Black community about cancer care,...

ObjectivesTo date, limited and inconsistent evidence exists regarding racial discrimination and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsCross-sectional observational study of 1005 US-born non-Hispanic black (n = 504) and white (n = 501) participants age 35–64 randomly selected from community health centers in Boston, MA (2008–2010; 82.4% response rate), using 3 racial discrimination measures: explicit self-report; implicit association test (IAT, a time reaction test for self and group as target vs. perpetrator of discrimination); and structural (Jim Crow status of state of birth, i.e. legal racial discrimination prior 1964).ResultsBlack and white participants both had adverse cardiovascular and socioeconomic profiles, with black participants most highly exposed to racial discrimination. Positive crude associations among black participants occurred for Jim Crow birthplace and hypertension (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28, 2.89) and for explicit self-report and the Framingham 10 year CVD risk score (beta = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01, 0.07); among white participants, only negative crude associations existed (for IAT for self, for lower systolic blood pressure (SBP; beta = −4.86; 95% CI −9.08, −0.64) and lower Framingham CVD score (beta = −0.36, 95% CI −0.63, −0.08)). All of these associations were attenuated and all but the white IAT-Framingham risk score association were rendered null in analyses that controlled for lifetime socioeconomic position and additional covariates. Controlling for racial discrimination, socioeconomic position, and other covariates did not attenuate the crude black excess risk for SBP and hypertension and left unaffected the null excess risk for the Framingham CVD score.ConclusionDespite worse exposures among the black participants, racial discrimination and socioeconomic position were not associated, in multivariable analyses, with risk of CVD. We interpret results in relation to constrained variability of exposures and outcomes and discuss implications for valid research on social determinants of health.

The American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Ambulatory Care Practice Research Network (PRN) considers the role of clinical pharmacists to be fundamental to the success of the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model.Within the PCMH, pharmacists can improve the health of populations by participating in activities that optimize medication management. Multiple published articles support clinical pharmacist involvement in the PCMH with regard to promotion of team-based care, enhanced access, care coordination, and improved quality and safety of care. A survey of clinical pharmacist members of ACCP who operate in such a model depict a variety of activities, with some members pioneering new and innovative ways to practice clinical pharmacy. Although this is a significant opportunity for pharmacists in the primary care setting, a unified vision of pharmacy services is needed. It is our hope that with continued efforts focused on obtaining national provider status, clinical pharmacy can use the PCMH model to solidify the future of primary care pharmacy. The following is an opinion statement of the ACCP Ambulatory Care PRN regarding the vital role of clinical pharmacists in the PCMH.

Access to rheumatology care can expedite diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases and reduce disparities. We surveyed community health center (CHC) medical directors to evaluate rheumatology care in underserved areas and potential strategies for improvement. We identified 77 Massachusetts CHCs that provide adult medical services and sent a 40-item survey to their physician medical directors. Survey questions assessed the centers' prevalence of rheumatic diseases, prescribing practices of immunosuppressive medications, and possible interventions to improve care. We compared CHC characteristics and rheumatology-specific items and then stratified our data by the response to whether improved access to rheumatology care was needed. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Thirty-six CHC physician medical directors returned surveys (47% response rate). Fifty-five percent indicated a need for better access to rheumatology care. Eighty-six percent of CHC physicians would not start a patient with rheumatoid arthritis on a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; 94% would not start a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus on an immunosuppressant. When we compared CHCs that reported needing better access to rheumatology care to those that did not, the former described a significantly greater percentage of patients with private insurance or Medicaid who required outside rheumatology referrals (P < 0.05). Language differences and insurance status were highlighted as barriers to obtaining rheumatology care. Sixteen directors (57%) ranked the patient navigator-a layperson to assist with care coordination-as their first-choice intervention. Community health center medical directors expressed a need for better access to rheumatology services. A patient navigator for rheumatic diseases was proposed to help improve care and reduce health disparities.