Creating a Workplace Culture of Preventive Health: Process and Outcomes of the Colon Cancer-Free Zone at Virginia Cooperative Extension

Workplace Culture of Health and Equitable Workforce Well-Being: A Scoping Literature Review

ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence base regarding employer-sponsored health and wellbeing (HWB) programs in relation to addressing workforce health inequities.Data SourceMultiple databases were systematically searched to identify research studies published between 2013 and 2022 regarding employer-sponsored HWB programs.Study Inclusion and Exclusion CriteriaResearchers included studies based on the following criteria: (1) described an employer-sponsored initiative to improve employee HWB; (2) included employees as the population of interest; (3) provided detail regarding participant demographics, and (4) included outcomes measures.Data ExtractionFour researchers screened the identified studies with abstraction conducted by a primary and secondary reviewer. Of the 3420 articles identified, 98 studies were eligible and abstracted.Data SynthesisData synthesis focused on research approach and design, as well as work setting, HWB program characteristics, and approach to inclusion of historically underrepresented or low-wage subpopulations.ResultsThe majority of studies highlighted programs focused on improving employee physical health (54) and/or mental health (24) or the workplace environment (27). Fourteen studies incorporated a randomized experimental design. Though nine studies intentionally recruited historically underrepresented populations and ten studies involved low-wage workers, none included race or ethnicity as independent variables. Various facilitators and barriers to employee participation were explored.ConclusionsDespite increasing employer focus on workforce HWB, few studies explored the program implications on historically underrepresented or low-wage populations or subpopulations.

Champions to enhance implementation of clinical and community-based interventions in cancer: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Champions are integral across research in cancer, yet studies exploring their roles are limited and have produced mixed results. The current review examines and synthesizes descriptions of how champions emerged and the types of activities they most often performed. By examining evidence from across the translational research continuum, this scoping review aims to characterize the role of champions and strategies that facilitate their involvement in the implementation of cancer care interventions in both clinical and community-based settings.

METHODS

This scoping review was designed and implemented in compliance with PRISMA-ScR. The review focused on peer-reviewed articles in English-language journals. We searched five databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus (including EMBASE), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Articles published from 1971 to 2022 were included. Two members of the team reviewed in duplicate each article and then a single member of the team extracted the data in Covidence, with a second member comparing the extraction to the original article. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted and then synthesized. These data were used to summarize core champion activities and implementation strategies and to characterize barriers and facilitators to using champions in research.

RESULTS

A total of 74 articles were included in the review. The qualitative synthesis highlighted facilitators and barriers to the effective use of champions. Facilitators included consideration of an individual's characteristics when identifying champions, time spent planning for the specific responsibilities of champions, working within a supportive environment, and identifying champions embedded in the target setting. Major barriers included constrained time, low self-efficacy among champions, inadequate training, high turnover rates of champions, and a lack of buy-in from organizational leadership toward the intervention. Champions also were mostly assigned their roles, had varied core activities, and used complementary strategies to empower their target populations. Champions' most frequent core activities include facilitation, outreach/promotion, and recruitment of participants into studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Champions were used in research of many cancer types and often serve similar roles regardless of where they are located within the translational research process. Despite their critical role, evidence is lacking on the impact of champions specifically on outcomes of many of the research studies that include them. Future research is needed to understand the nuances of champion-driven approaches across diverse cancer care settings.

Hiding in plain sight: Cooperative Extension as an underutilized approach to improving cancer survivorship outcomes in underserved populations

PURPOSE

Explore the potential utility of a Cooperative Extension-specific program to support post-active treatment cancer survivors.

METHODS

A user-centered study was conducted to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of a program for adult cancer survivors living post primary cancer treatment ("cancer survivors") via Cooperative Extension ("Extension"), including interviews analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants included Cooperative Extension Educators and adult cancer survivors in Oklahoma who completed data collection from July 2023 to September 2023.

RESULTS

N = 20 participants were enrolled. Cancer survivors indicated poor familiarity with Extension, or a primary association with agriculture. Some voiced surprise Extension was not already providing cancer-related programming. Many expressed poor support in their communities due to issues secondary to rurality, often relying on non-cancer programs. Educators voiced a strong capability to deliver cancer-related programming if intentionally designed, with many already providing education on relevant topics (e.g., finances, nutrition, physical activity). A salient barrier was poor connectivity with the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an immense need for improved survivorship care in underserved communities due to poor social connectedness, support structures, and poor mental health. Cooperative Extension is well-poised to deliver cancer survivorship-specific programming.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cooperative Extension provides an extensive network of professionals who can provide support to cancer survivors, particularly those post-active treatment.

Effectiveness of workplace cancer screening interventions: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer cases are rising globally, with a noticeable rise in younger adults. Screening and early detection are effective in decreasing mortality. Workplaces can play a role in promoting cancer screening uptake. This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of workplace breast, lung, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening interventions, and the factors impacting their effectiveness.

METHODOLOGY

Six databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus) were searched, and cancer screening promotion and cancer screening uptake was analysed using effect direction plots. Magnitude of effectiveness (i.e., change in knowledge or screening rate) was also evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 13,426 articles were identified. After screening and applying the eligibility criteria, 21 articles were included in the analysis. A positive effect direction was seen for all workplace cancer screening promotion interventions. Magnitude of effectiveness for cancer screening promotion interventions resulted in a > 30% change in knowledge or screening uptake in 4/7 of breast cancer, in 3/4 of cervical cancer and 1/3 colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions. For workplace cancer screening uptake interventions, a positive effect direction was observed for the majority (18/22). Cancer screening uptake interventions showed a > 30% change in magnitude of screening rate in 4/7 breast cancer, 5/10 colorectal cancer and in 1/5 cervical cancer workplace interventions. No studies for lung cancer were eligible. Factors positively influencing effectiveness included an interest in health and previous healthcare use, while fear of cancer and embarrassment of screening negatively influenced effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Workplace cancer screening promotion and uptake interventions can effectively improve cancer screening knowledge and increase uptake of screening tests.

Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review

Objectives

Summarise theory informed educational interventions for improving bowel cancer awareness and screening.

Methods

A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL. English studies from 2016 to 2022 which implemented community-based bowel cancer awareness and/or screening education interventions for adults in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries were included.

Results

Sixty-two studies were included, 32 measured both screening and awareness (24 measured screening only, 6 measured awareness only). Education interventions were grouped and summarised in five education types: lay community health education/counselling (n = 28), education material (n = 5), health professional education/counselling (n = 10), mass media (n = 5) and other (n = 19). Other included education interventions which did not fit into the four types previously mentioned. Six studies tested more than one education type. Each type within these studies were reported/summarised separately within the appropriate education type. Lay educators resulted in improved awareness and screening. Brochures were effective education materials for screening and combined with lay educators resulted in increased awareness. State-wide mass media campaigns significantly improved screening uptake for up to 2-months post-campaign. Fear and loss-framed messaging improved screening intentions compared to humour or gain-based messaging. Decision aids had limited improvements in awareness. Facebook campaign and telephone counselling had limited improvements in screening.

Conclusions

Lay community health educators, brochures, and mass media campaigns occurring multiple times a year may be effective interventions in improving screening and/or awareness. Such approaches should be considered when developing community education. Education interventions should include multiple components suggested above to maximise improvements of awareness and screening.