Diversifying Electronic Cohort Research at UCSF

A community-engaged contest to select and support a diverse "eCohort" at UCSF

Printable Proposal Content with Comments

Use your browser's print function to output proposal content only, with each proposal starting a new page. Print to Adobe PDF to produce a file. (Note: Chrome and IE9 do not support starting a new page for each proposal.)

Hypospadias and Penile Problems in Children Including Observation Registry

Proposal Status: 

Hypospadias and Penile Problems in Children Including Observation Registry

Plain-language summary of proposal:

Hypospadias is a condition that occurs in boys where the urethral meatus, or opening where the urine comes out, is not in the typical position.  The current consensus among pediatric surgeons it to repair the hypospadias surgically within the first year of life so that the boy will be able to live his life with a “normal” penis.  Thus, hypospadias surgery is now one of the most common genital surgeries performed in children under 18 months of age.  Recently, however, doubt has been cast on the validity of this consensus view.  First, the complication rate of these surgeries is high, second, the risk of anesthesia is higher in these young children, and third, there are ethical questions regarding informed consent; i.e., the ability of a minor to consent to genital surgery for a non-life-threatening condition.

So, the question becomes:  Is living life with the penile meatus not in the typical position detrimental to a child’s and/or adult’s quality of life?  If it is not detrimental, then the obvious answer is that we should wait; surgery can be done when the child is older.  However, it is also important to ask this question among a diverse group of people, as different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds will most likely affect how this question is answered.  Certain groups of people may do better with early surgery, and others with surgery later in life.  This has never been studied before.    

Our hypothesis is that most hypospadias surgery is unnecessary in infants and small children, but the results will vary by ethnicity and cultural background.  One of the ways we will study this hypothesis is by seeking out adults with hypospadias who have never had surgery, and see how they fared in life.  Since almost all children in the past have had surgery for their hypospadias, the numbers of “non-surgically altered” hypospadias patients are quite small, so we will need to study a very large group of adult men to find these patients. The only way to recruit enough adult patients from diverse groups (to include people with different ethnicities, sexual preferences, gender identities) would be online, through electronic medical records, and with community involvement.      

We will create the first registry for hypospadias in the nation, and this will be the first time watchful waiting (non-operative treatment) of genital atypia will be evaluated scientifically, and the first time a large diverse group of adult non-operated patients can be studied.

Full proposal:

Mild penile disorders, such as distal hypospadias and its variants, are common and occur in approximately 1% of boys. More severe penile disorders, such as differences of sex development (DSD), are less common, but both hypospadias and DSD can have profound impacts on a child’s quality of life.  Most of these children receive surgery at a young age, usually before 18 months of age.  Hypospadias and chordee surgery are some of the most common genital surgeries performed in children under 18 months of age.  However, there is currently very little evidence that infant genital surgery has a beneficial effect in the long term. In the short term, surgery can create external genitalia that conform to parental and societal perceptions of what is considered normal, which is why the surgery is so common, but these perceived benefits can come at a cost to the child. There are some data that performing surgery early in life may have lower complication rates, but conversely, there are also data that show no difference in the complication rates between early and late surgery. However, there is a significant complication rate for early surgery, even for mild forms of childhood hypospadias; the complication rate has been reported to be up to 10%, and many of these patients may require more than one operation, and possibly have long term sequelae even into adulthood, including psychosexual sequelae. There are also new concerns about short term memory loss associated with general anesthesia in the first two years of life, and additionally, concerns about informed consent are arising that question the ability of the parents to make decisions regarding their child’s genitalia.  

Our hypothesis is that most of these surgeries are unnecessary in infants and small children, and children will have a normal quality of life (QOL) without surgery, and possibly an improved QOL, since the complication rate for penile surgery in infants is up to 10%.  There are two ways to test this hypothesis:  one is to offer select children non-surgical treatment at their first clinic appointment and then follow them prospectively through adulthood; the second is to find adults who have never had penile surgery for their atypical genitalia and see how they fared in life.  It is the second method that this proposal is most interested in, since this adult cohort can be identified and recruited online, or by reviewing EHR’s.  In fact, since DSD’s are a rare disorder, the only way to recruit enough adult patients from diverse groups (to include people with different ethnicities, sexual preferences, gender identities, ages, and different forms of DSD’s) would be online. 

We propose creating the first ever registry that includes non-operated patients with penile disorders (Hypospadias and Penile Problems in Children Including Observation Registry - HAPPIOR).  We will follow the patients prospectively giving us the ability to perform observational comparative studies as the data comes in. The HAPPIOR study will recruit new patients through urology clinics as the patients arrive, but more importantly, we will be able to develop a large diverse cohort by also recruiting patients utilizing electronic means such as EHR extraction, on-line social media and dedicated web sites, including community involvement.  Community involvement will be essential for not only recruitment, but for helping us to be certain that our approach is sensitive to that specific community. 

HAPPIOR will be the first registry for hypospadias and other penile anomalies in the nation, and the first time watchful waiting (non-operative treatment) of genital atypia will be able to be evaluated in a prospective fashion, and the first time a large diverse cohort of adult non-operated patients can be studied. Because of the potential for this study to change the timing of genital surgery – i.e., allowing the patient and not just the parent to participate in the decision-making process, we have the support of the Accord Alliance, a major patient advocacy group for children and adults with disorders of sex development (DSD) and an important advocacy group in the DSD community.   

This proposal addresses both aspects of the Diverse eCohort Research mission: developing a large cohort that can only be accomplished with online support, and creating that cohort so that it is diverse.  Diversity is essential in this type of research as different population groups (and sub-groups) have very different pre-conceived notions of what constitutes “normal” male genitalia.  For example, it is the authors experience that certain population groups are much more comfortable with the penile meatus being somewhat proximal, or of foreskin abnormalities, than those of other populations.  We will plan to recruit Spanish speaking patients to help study this hypothesis among that population, and we will also study other ethnicities.  We will also study variations in sub-groups among the different populations, such as sexual preference, gender identity, religious values, age, and others.

In the first year, this registry will initially include only patients seen and recruited by UCSF faculty, however, the goal is to eventually expand the registry to include other centers, and to develop a global initiative as well.  This current proposal, if chosen, would be used a pilot study for a larger NIH grant proposal used to extend the time period and the cohort.  A previous pilot study by the author was able to recruit 52 men with untreated penile anomalies by using a simple Facebook advertisement, so the author anticipates with a robust web presence, community involvement, and EHR extraction, this number can be increased to over 1000 in the first year.  Preliminary results would be able to be used immediately to show that non-surgical treatment is an option in these patients, and this information will be disseminated to the DSD community through advocacy groups such as the Accord Alliance.  In addition, the results will be shared with legislators to help them develop government proposals regarding genital surgery in children (there is a current non-binding resolution in California to ban genital surgery in children, and we would be proactive in making sure the legislatures base their final decisions on sound science).

Recruitment will be twofold.  We will recruit existing UCSF urology clinic patients into the HAPPIOR registry as they come in to clinic.  Additional patients will be recruited by electronic means (EHR extraction, Web).  This will be accomplished utilizing a UCSF online research platform per the eCohort proposal.  Local patients discovered by electronic means will be invited to the urology clinic for a routine patient appointment where data will be collected (including digital photography in patients under 2 years old), deidentified, and placed in the registry.  For non-local patients, data will be collected online, deidentified, and placed in the registry.  Inclusion criteria are any self-identifying male with hypospadias, chordee, megameatus, micropenis, bifid scrotum, penoscrotal transposition, or DSD.       

Appraisal tools will be based on age and include, but not be limited to:  The Penile Perception Score (PPS) (the PPS for adults and the PPPS for children and parents), the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPPS), and the Multidimensional Sexual Self Concept Questionnaire (MSSCQ).  QOL will be measured using more broad-based measures (e.g., The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, the Index of Race Related Stress--Brief Version, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life--Brief Version) so as to control for the differences seen in QOL in different racial/ethnic populations.

Routine physical examination with measurements, and 3D digital photography in children under two years old, will also be performed in those patients seen in clinic.

This study has already been submitted to the UCSF IRB and has passed through the preliminary review phase and is awaiting final approval.  Our research team is self-supporting, i.e., not requiring salary support or direct funding from this opportunity.  However, if selected, after the one-year period of in-kind support, we will plan to keep the project active indefinitely, initially with internal funding (from the PI’s Medical Project fund) for one additional year.  After the first 2 years, we anticipate having convincing preliminary results and plan to extend the database to multiple institutions and locations utilizing external funding.

If chosen, this study will facilitate discovery of specific phenotype/outcome associations and measured versus perceived characteristics of genital anatomy in a large diverse cohort.  This project will act as a basis for a future long-term registry and will lead to observational studies that will finally determine the necessity and efficacy of early genital surgery in children.

Comments

This is a perfect proposal for this mechanism and will bring needed community engagement and broad representation across diverse populations.

Given the significant burden surgery places on the infant and family, assessment of long-term outcomes and will allow providers to better inform families and allow them to more fully participate in shared decision making, with the critical benefit of avoiding potentially unneccesary procedures. This funding mechanism would provide importatn support for this type of registry.

This innovative study has great potential impact for children with minor hypospadias. Novel data collection methods will be needed to reach the patients with untreated hypospadias.

Thanks for taking the time to add your proposal.  Our selection committee has UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members and non-medical staff so a short, accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. Could you share a 150-word plain-language summary of your ideas?

I added a plain-language section last week - thanks for the suggestion.

This is a very important question that needs to be studied with significant implications for those patients and families

Nice proposal.  Can you clarify whether you and your team, if selected, will have the resources to continue to support the project through at least Fall 2020?  As you know, this proposal does not provide salary support.

Thank you, and yes, we will have support after the 1 yr period.  I edited the proposal to reflect that.

In summary, our research team is self-supporting, i.e., not requiring salary support or direct funding from this opportunity.  However, if selected, after the one-year period of in-kind support, we will plan to keep the project active indefinitely, initially with internal funding (from the PI’s Medical Project fund) for one additional year.  After the first 2 years, we anticipate having convincing preliminary results and plan to extend the database to multiple institutions and locations utilizing external funding).

This is a sensitive topic!  How did your Facebook-based recruitment go?  Did you get any negative feedback from your ads?  How might community organizations "pitch" this project to their communities given the sensitivity?

Yes, this is a sensitive topic!  But interestingly, many adults did show gratitude that someone reached out to them.  Few people are comfortable discussing their penile anatomy with providers, and most do not feel comfortable at all, especially in certain ethnic cultures.  Thus there is very little data on these patients, they remain “hidden.”  So we were surprised by the overwhelmingly positive response to our Facebook survey; there was really no negative feedback.  I did not mention this in the proposal, but we asked patients to send us photographs of their penile meatus or curvature, and we received many despite the taboo associated with discussing genital anatomy with others.  I think we will be surprised with how easily community organizers will be able to address this with their community – nobody has ever reached out to these patients before and just being heard will be a huge weight lifted off their shoulders.   

Are you interested in a non-English version of the surveys and study materials?  What language, if you had to pick?

Yes, in the proposal we mentioned that certain ethnicities perceive atypical genitalia in different ways.  We therefore would be interested in non-English versions, especially Spanish for two reasons.  First, Spanish speaking patients have different attitudes about the importance of where the meatus is (they seem to be less concerned), and second, there may be a large population of Spanish speaking adults in Northern California who have never had genital surgery since they were born in Latin America.  Since most North Americans with hypospadias have had genital surgery as infants, we are likely to find more non-operated Latin American patients if we reach out to them.

Interesting topic to say the least.  

1) for the local non-clinic sample and given recruitment will be on-line --- what approaches/ideas have you thought about that engage the community advisors? how can they best help?  

2) have any of the scales and/or questionnaires been pilot tested for non-english speaking patients? have they been reviewed for cultural appropriateness which requires pilot testing.. too often scales/ questionnaires have not been tested for diverse patient population - they are built by and for a generic white population. Important to note generational status in demographic information

 

3) QOL - the immigrant Spanish speaking population is very diverse to be able to generalize outcomes  - factors suc as country of origin, SES, age, region rural/urban/, transgender, health care access, education level, etc. will inform QOL measurement.. how do you foresee addressing this diversity within spanish speaking male population?  and do you have specific research questions or hypothesis for the sub-groups? 

4) QOL - do we have a baseline for QOL for different racial/ethnic populations living in US from which to analyze and/or compare?  how do you define QOL for the study and how do you take into account / consider how other countries define quality of life? how they see it? different countries have different cultural / ethnic ideas around sexuality/ sexual health etc.. 

5) do you have diverse research staff that has experience working with men of color, specifically spanish speaking men? 

6) It was mentioned in the proposal that additional patients would be recruited from EHR. Would these patients already by part of UCSF or does it involve inviting non-UCSF patients to your clinic? If so, will these participants have to pay additional costs? 

7) Will participants receive some form of compensation or incentives for the participation in the study?

 

 

Thanks you for the helpful comments - I have adressed each below:

1)  In our previous study that used Facebook as a recruitment tool, we actively involved the local LGTB community to promote the site.  This was mainly through word of mouth from one community member to another, and we were surprised by the positive response.  People enjoyed taking the survey and learning about penile anatomy; it was enlightening for many.  With the current proposal, we plan to work with various communities in a more in-depth fashion; developing educational modules, and links that will be associated with the surveys.  Our hope is that, like the prior Facebook study, people will seek out the online recruitment tool with community activism because they will have the opportunity to learn about something that is not commonly discussed, have community support to do so, and the ability to see a urologist at UCSF if they like.  I adjusted to proposal to reflect this.

2)  Since this is a topic that is not well studied in any population, there are understandably few scores/scales that have been pilot tested for non-English speaking patients.  However, we are very aware of cultural appropriateness, especially for a topic like this, and we would plan to work with community members to pilot the surveys.  This method of piloting the surveys would be less scientific than ideal, but our feeling is that with community involvement we can develop sensitive surveys that take into account differences in specific cultures.  I added generational status in the demographic section of the proposal. 

3)  We will not be generalizing outcomes for the immigrant Spanish speaking population; I clarified the proposal to reflect this.  In fact, one of the advantages of this proposal is that we will be studying diversity in a diverse population.  For example, do Spanish-speaking transgender individuals born in Mexico perceive their genitalia differently than those born in Guatemala, or in California?  This is important because our research question is whether we “need” to to do surgery on all children with atypical genitalia.  If a certain group or sub-group has demonstrated that their quality of life is no better or worse with their atypia, then we potentially can save many children the fate of unnecessary surgery as infants.

4)  Yes, it is known that QOL measurements are different for different racial/ethnic populations.  We will attempt to control for this by using more broad-based measures (e.g., The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, the Index of Race Related Stress--Brief Version, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life--Brief Version) and by controlling for the differences published for the QOL in different racial/ethnic populations.  I clarified this in the proposal.

5)  Yes, our main research team consists of a female who is fluent in Spanish, two members of the LGBT community, and we are all clinicians with busy clinical practices.  In fact, we are the main providers of Urology at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (the PI is the Chief of Urology there) where a majority of our patients are people of color, including a large Spanish speaking population.  Between us, we see over a thousand Spanish speaking patients a year, and we’ve all been practicing in Oakland for over 10 years.

6)  We will recruit patients who are already part of the UCSF system, plus non-UCSF patients.  Whether they are UCSF or non-UCSF, they will receive the normal standard of care for their genital atypia, and because this is considered a congenital anomaly by most insurance providers, their visit will most likely be covered by their insurance.  If it is not, then they would need to pay for the visit themselves, and that would be explained to them prior to the visit, as it would for any patient visiting UCSF for the first time. There is no additional compensation for being in the study, and there will be no additional costs. 

7)  No, other than the incentives mentioned above for learning more about their genital anatomy. 

Thanks for this proposal.  How do you anticipate the Eureka platform could be helpful beyond providng web-based recrutiment and online education, which could possibly happen without Eureka?

Eureka appears to be a perfect platform for this proposal.  If funded, we would like to use Eureka to help us develop a robust internet and mobile app interface which would be engaging for our participants, as well as researchers, allowing us to spark as much interest as possible in participating in this project.  As mentioned in the proposal, we are embarking on a study of individuals who have disorders that have essentially never been studied before (non-operative outcomes of patients with penile atypia).  In order to recruit, retain and study these individuals, we will need to develop various app and internet interfaces that are sensitive to this unique problem, and having input from participants in the Eureka group will be a vast improvement vs. what can be accomplished with ordinary tech support.  Also, one of our aims is to establish a registry of these patients and to follow them long-term (HAPPIOR), and eventually collaborate with other institutions and communities for sharing of data.  The Eureka platform seems ideal for this, as it will allow other institutions and communities to become involved much more easily than with traditional forms of collaboration.  This is essential for this type of sensitive research.  With further funding, in the future the Eureka platform could be the basis for multiple e-cohort studies on this understudied population.   

Thank you for this proposal, as I did not have much awareness of this condition, nor the ethical concerns attached to it. I'm appreciate all of your responses and at this point I'm curious about your response to Mr. Vargas's comment so that I can rate this appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.  Yes, there are many ethical concerns which I believe can only be addressed with solid research.  Unfortunately, up to now, there has been very little research on this topic and thus people are basing their treatment decisions on non-scientific criteria such as their perceptions about how other people should feel.  In fact, last week the California legislature passed a non-binding resolution to denounce genital surgery in children with atypical genitalia, “these surgeries can have significant negative impacts on people’s lives, particularly if the gender chosen by the physician and parents is different from the child’s ultimate gender identity,” was a comment by the state legislator who drafted the resolution.  Interestingly, it is becoming the politicians and courts who are increasingly weighing-in on how to treat these patients, yet they have very little data to support their positions.  The only way we will break this cycle is for physicians, scientists, and interested community members to support scientific research in this field.     

Commenting is closed.

The Patient Cancer OUtreach, Navigation, Technology and Support (Patient COUNTS) Project: Addressing Care for Asian Americans with Cancer

Proposal Status: 

Summary. Cancer is the most common cause of death for Asian Americans, but many Asian American cancer patients do not receive appropriate treatment or survivorship care. To better address their needs, we will develop and test a culturally and linguistically tailored navigation program, Patients COUNTS. We will enroll 150 Asian American men and women recently diagnosed with colorectal, liver, or lung cancer. We will work with an Advisory Council comprised of members from the community and healthcare settings to ensure our platform is culturally relevant. Bilingual patient navigators will help patients: obtain appropriate clinical care, assist with logistical needs (e.g., transportation), and provide other support to address emotional, social, and stress-related needs. Patient COUNTS will use a multilingual (English, Chinese, Vietnamese) web-based patient portal to provide access to virtual or in-person patient navigation, cancer information and resources, and to assess patient-reported outcomes.

 

Background/Study Description. 

Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in the U.S. Two-thirds of Asian Americans speak a language other than English at home, and 31% do not speak English very well. Cancer is the most common cause of death for Asian Americans, but many Asian American cancer patients do not receive appropriate treatment or patient-centered survivorship care.

According to the Pew Internet Survey, Asian Americans were the most prolific users of the internet among all racial/ethnic groups, and use continues to increase over time among all sociodemographic groups. The 2016 California Health Interview Survey (adult questionnaire) data for Asian Americans in San Francisco show that 72% of Chinese and 85% of Vietnamese reported using the internet for health or medical information in the past year. In a prior case-control study of breast cancer among Asian Americans in the Bay Area, we found that 84% of breast cancer patients and 80% of controls reported using the internet daily or several times a week, and 66% of patients and 59% of controls reported that they would complete a health survey online. Although internet usage and willingness to complete a health survey online declined with increasing age, the rates were still high at 70% and 45% among those ages 56 and older among breast cancer patients and controls, respectively. In another prior study, we tested the use of an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) approach to collecting survey data from Asian American breast cancer patients and controls using short online surveys administered frequently over time to capture real-time exposure data, limiting issues with recall. This approach involved sending links via text of email to short online surveys on a periodic basis. All (100%) participants in this pilot test reported preferring this mode of research study engagement over traditional epidemiologic data collection approaches via telephone, in-person interviews, or mailed surveys.

Based on the community needs and findings from these surveys and preliminary studies, the Patient COUNTS Study will develop, implement, and evaluate an intervention to improve the quality of cancer care and support among Asian American colorectal, liver or lung cancer patients. Given the teams experience working with the Asian American community over the past 20 years, we expect that uptake and reception of using web-based platforms among Asian American cancer patients will be quite high. Thus, we feel that the time is right to test the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based program, focusing here on Chinese and Vietnamese patients, in addition to English-speaking Asian Americans.

The intervention, Patient COUNTS, is a patient-centered program that utilizes technology to identify newly diagnosed cancer patients, reaches out to them to offer information about cancer care, and, through navigation, helps patients obtain appropriate clinical care, assistance for logistical needs, and support for psychosocial stress. The Patient COUNTS intervention will use on-line communication tools such as a web-based patient portal and video conferencing to provide cancer information and resources, and patient navigation either virtually or in-person for these Asian American cancer patients who speak English, Chinese, or Vietnamese. We will assess the patient’s needs such as knowledge about guideline-based cancer treatment, logistical barriers, and psychosocial stress associated with cancer diagnosis. Either in-person or virtually, depending on the patient’s preference, we will be available to be present at the patient’s clinical visits to provide assistance as needed. We will provide patients access to curated online and community supportive services as needed to address issues raised by the patient. In addition, we will assess the feasibility of using the web-based patient portal to collect patient-generated health data on cancer survivorship outcomes including adherence to treatments, satisfaction with care, and quality of life.

The Patient COUNTS Study leverages the collective and synergistic expertise of a multi-disciplinary team comprising of community-based participatory researchers, clinicians, and cancer epidemiologists with two decades of experience collecting cancer data and conducting interventions with Asian Americans, and strong connections with community-based organizations and patient advocates. This innovative study will culminate in a culturally and linguistically appropriate cancer navigation program with great potential for adaptation and sustainability. The impact of the project on Asian American communities will be to: create a much-needed tool to coordinate medical and non-medical supportive services for Asian American cancer patients; connect them to community supportive services; and in the process of demystifying the treatment of cancer and providing practical solutions to problems associated with a cancer diagnosis, mobilize Asian American communities to confront the stigma and burden of cancer.

Study Sample. We plan to recruit a total of 150 patients through population-based recruitment of Asian Americans newly-diagnosed with colorectal, lung and liver cancer from the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (GBACR), a part of the statewide California Cancer Registry and the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Eligible cases are defined as: self-identify as  Asian American; age 21 or older; reside in one of the nine GBACR counties at time of diagnosis and interview; speak and read English, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Vietnamese; has not yet completed treatment (may have begun treatment); and is willing to participate in a study that lasts up to 7 months, in order to complete data collection activities after the 6 months of follow-up. Given the focus of the study on patient navigation through the cancer treatment phase, we will focus on patients diagnosed with stages I-III cancer. Eligible patients will also need to have access to the internet. Study measures will include shared decision-making, provider-recommended treatments, treatment status (initiation, adherence), reasons for discontinuing treatment, satisfaction with care, and health-related quality of life (including cancer specific concerns and side-effects). In addition, sociodemographic data on participants will be collected.

Why seeking support for an online engagement platform that will help enroll diverse study participants.

For this study, we would like to create a platform that will operate as a secured cloud-based system and will be HIPAA compliant. Participants will register with name, email and/or cellular telephone number, and will then be identified within the system by a unique Study ID number. There will be separate portals for each cancer site so that content can be tailored to the specific cancer site. We will develop the site in English, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Prior to implementation of the Patient COUNTS intervention, we will conduct usability testing of the online portal with members of our Advisory Committee. We will aim for a literacy level of 8th grade in all languages. The core content will be the same for all languages, but we will culturally target each language group by adapting graphics, examples, idioms, tone, and other relevant communication characteristics. Since English speaking Asian Americans can comprise over 30 different national origin groups, the amount of targeting will have to be limited to commonly shared elements. We will work with our diverse Advisory Council to delineate these elements.

We envision an online portal that will include the following features/capabilities: multilingual content (English, Chinese, Vietnamese); electronic consenting; self-administered brief surveys (15 minutes each) at baseline (enrollment), 3 months, and 6 months [topics will include treatment, shared decision making; health-related quality of life]; personalized report/feedback from surveys; reports to navigators; cancer and survivorship information; and links to a curated list of credible resources, including local, community-based ones.

Through our Advisory Council and using two decades of experience in conducting community-engaged research and patient-centered research with Asian American communities, we will identify the key issues related to cancer care for Asian Americans and approaches to provide assistance for those issues in order to create an intervention that is culturally, linguistically, and societally appropriate. Because of the stakeholder-driven approach, the possibility for sustainability is also higher, particularly as we will interact with the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (sfcancer.org), an innovative communitywide effort to reduce the effect of cancer and cancer disparities in the city and county of San Francisco.

The Patient COUNTS Study has been selected for funding from the Bristol Meyers Squibb Foundation with support for 3 years, with a study start date of July 1, 2018. Per the study timeline, we have 18 months to develop and test the online portal, and will implement the online navigation intervention and evaluation in the subsequent 18 months. Upon completion of the funded study, we expect the technological infrastructure to remain. This includes the web portal and any educational materials developed for the project. Other elements, particularly the multi-lingual aspect and the involvement of the navigator, will need support to be maintained. We anticipate that SF CAN will help with this. We will also work with healthcare systems to identify the possibility of support. In addition, we will seek to pursue the model established by the California Smokers’ Quitline, which is available in multiple languages and originally supported by research funding, but is now supported by a variety of funders including the California Department of Public Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to add your proposal. Our selection committee has UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members and non-medical staff. While your proposal is well written, a short, accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. Could you share a 150-word plain-language summary of your proposal?

Cancer is the most common cause of death for Asian Americans, but many Asian American cancer patients do not receive appropriate treatment or survivorship care. To better address their needs, we will develop and test a culturally and linguistically tailored navigation program, Patients COUNTS. We will enroll 150 Asian American men and women recently diagnosed with colorectal, liver, or lung cancer. We will work with an Advisory Council comprised of members from the community and healthcare settings to ensure our platform is culturally relevant. Bilingual patient navigators will help patients: obtain appropriate clinical care, assist with logistical needs (e.g., transportation), and provide other support to address emotional, social, and stress-related needs. Patient COUNTS will use a multilingual (English, Chinese, Vietnamese) web-based patient portal to provide access to virtual or in-person patient navigation, cancer information and resources, and to assess patient-reported outcomes.

It would be good to put this nice summary at the top of the actual proposal in a separate section (maybe, "Summary"?)

Thank you for the suggestion.  I have added this summary to the top of the proposal.

Exciting project.  One concern I have is that it sounds like you are relatively early in the process of defining exactly what sort of patient-reported outcomes and other information you will be collecting.  We are on a tight timeline for development of the projects - will you have this stuff figured out in time for us to actually build you a portal in early 2019?

We are currently working on finalizing surveys for this study and will be ready with those items by early 2019.

To make this feasible for our timeline, we may have to focus on a particular type of cancer and/or a particular language.  If you had to choose, which would you choose?

We are envisioning a single portal with branching algorithms for cancer site-specific content. Regarding languages (non-English), we are open to discussing the best route given technical considerations for implementing this with Chinese characters vs. Vietnamese alphabet. Given the study demographics, Chinese would be the preference if we had to choose, but understand there may be some limitations.

I'm a little unclear on whether the project that we will be supporting will be an intervention or just an observational cohort.  Does our portal have to actually deliver educational materials and support for patients, or is it just collecting information?  If the former, what kind of special functions and features might it need?  Will there be a control group that gets a different intervention or usual care?

We are hoping to have content that covers general information regarding cancer, treatment, and survivorship related issues and resources as well as being able to collect data from our participants. We are developing a navigation intervention for Asian Americans that is culturally and linguistically tailors and also virtual. In this feasibility study, we are not including a control group.

Are you planning on deliberately recruiting UCSF patients (e.g., through clinic or using electronic medical records)?  Also, will you be using the GBACR to actually find patients and get their contact information for recruitment?  Will you want to maintain a linkage back to the GBACR so the data from the GBACR could be linked with the survey data you will collect?

 

We are planning to recruit participants from early case ascertainment through the GBACR and not directly from UCSF. Yes, we will need to be able to track participants as they register onto the online portal so that we know who is participating and can link them back to registry data as needed.

This is a novel idea in the field of patient navigation.  It can potentially benefit many Asian cancer patients who are technology users.  If the study is proven to be effective, it can also be translational to other communities.

 

Sounds like an interesting project and that you and your team have been mindful of incorporating a community advisory component from the very beginning of the project. 

1. Other than through the advisory council you mentioned above, how could community advisorys help with this study?

2. We like the inclusion of patient navigators into the study as we know the important of personal interactions with "navigators" in medical processe.. 

3. to clarify, there is no control group and so this is more of an observational study, correct? I think we have the same questions that Mark posed earlier... 

Thank you for your comments/questions.  Please see responses below: 

1. The role of the Community Advisory council is to primarily help with the development of the content for the web portal and pre-testing of those materials. We also see them as having a role in helping with interpretation of study findings, dissemination and working on next steps, including sustainability.

2. Thank you for this comment. We see the integration of the patient navigation component as in important aspect of the online tool.

3. Yes, there is no control group in this study as it is a feasibility study to develop an online patient portal for cancer patients/survivors. The development process will integrate feedback from patients and community advisory board. The online portal will aim to collect data from patient users, provide general and tailored information, and connect users to patient navigation and resources as appropriate.  Our next study will likely be an intervention study on the effectiveness of this approach.

 

Hello. Thank you for those thoughtful responses. It seems like you have thought through your approach engaging community stakeholders. I just wanted to clarify that there are community advisors on the steering committee that will be weighing in on projects and working to support them. In what way do you think community advisory members on this steering committee could be helpful to your project? 

We would welcome input from the community advisory members on the Diverse eCohort initiative, especially in the design and development of our portal for cancer survivors. In addition, we would also welcome their input as we develop strategies for dissemination and broader implementation in our communities. 

Thanks for this proposal.  Community partners who will collaborate to help strengthen the capacity of the platform and project to engage diverse communities represent communities that are Asian, African American and Latino.  While your study is primarily focused on Asian populations, what are thoughts for how community based program partners from non-asian communities could enhance this project?

While this particular study is focused on tailoring navigation for Asian American cancer patients, we hope to develop the portal such that it could be adapted/tailored for many other communities.

Thank you for your proposal, it is definitely such important work, and I find myself still a bit vague on the specific asks, is there a way to clarify and narrow down the scope for the purpose of this initial phase?

Thanks for your comment and opportunity to clarify our vision for the online portal.

The scope for this initial phase is to develop and test an online portal in multiple languages (English, Chinese, Vietnamese) with the following components:

--e-consent participants

 

--culturally tailored colorectal, liver, and lung cancer information and resources for Asian American patients

--collect patient reported outcomes longitudinally and provide a visual “report back” on their data; flag navigators for various response thresholds that may require check-in with participant

--provide access to online (“virtual”)/in-person navigation

Commenting is closed.

Computerized Assessment of Mental Status (CAMS): Using remote assessment to make mental health resources more accessible to underserved populations

Primary Author: Josh Woolley
Proposal Status: 

Computerized Assessment of Mental Status (CAMS): Using remote assessment to make mental health resources more accessible to underserved populations

The Problem

Every year, one in five adults in the U.S. experiences mental illness and over $190 billion in earnings are lost due to the disabling effects of serious mental illness. Members of racial and ethnic minorities face an even greater burden: they are less likely to have access to mental health services, more likely to use emergency rooms for their mental health care, and more likely to receive lower quality care. The overwhelming personal, social, and economic costs associated with mental illness, particularly in underserved communities, call for innovative approaches that address this critical gap in access. Remote assessment of mental health has the potential to transform mental health care delivery, but lack of robust assessment tools presents a major challenge to implementing scalable, cost-effective solutions.

The Solution

When a person seeks mental health care, the first thing clinicians do is a mental health status interview. Throughout this interview, the clinician looks for signs of mental health or illness by observing their behavior: the language they use, the quality of their voice, and how they move their face and body. Unfortunately, these mental health assessments are 1) expensive in terms of training and administration time, and 2) subjective, meaning that conclusions can vary by clinician and are vulnerable to implicit bias. To address these challenges, we have developed Computerized Assessment of Mental Status (CAMS), an easy-to-use, interactive, cloud-based application that extracts information about people’s behavior from video data in order to objectively assess their mental health status. CAMS has the potential to improve accessibility, precision, and cost-effectiveness of mental health care delivery, whether used for connecting first-time patients to the mental health resources they need, or monitoring people already in treatment.   

How it works

In CAMS, participants interact with a virtual assistant, responding to a series of questions and stimuli similar to what is used during in-person mental health assessments (Fig. 1). From these videos of rich social behavior, we extract three types of data: 1) natural language (what the participant says), 2) vocal signals (how they say it), and 3) visual signals (how they move their face and body). Together, these data provide information about a participant’s emotional state and thought process, providing a snapshot of their mental health. When compared to normed data matched on demographic variables, this snapshot can indicate mental health problems and the need for treatment. The more data we have to compare participants’ results to, the more accurate CAMS will be. To ensure that we are building a platform that will serve diverse communities it is critical that data from those populations are adequately represented in the CAMS data.  

 Fig. 1

Fig. 1. Data collection using CAMS. A virtual assistant guides the participant through a series of tasks designed to capture clinically relevant behavior. For example, participants are asked about the last time they felt really happy and what they are most worried about. Participants also watch a series of brief, emotionally evocative videos and answer questions about the videos as shown above. Throughout CAMS, video data of the participant is recorded using a phone’s built-in camera. 

The current proposal

Previous efforts to generalize mental health research to diverse communities, especially research using technology, have been largely ineffective due to lack of diverse populations used in the original research. By combining CAMS with the capabilities of the Eureka platform, our goal is to create a tool that can improve access and cost-effectiveness of mental health care for underserved communities. Enrolling a large number of people who are diverse with regards to race, ethnicity, SES, and age, is a priority for three reasons. First, the proposed project will provide a critical first test of the usability of CAMS in diverse populations, enabling us to identify ways CAMS can best serve a wide variety of communities. Second, the project will yield a large dataset that allows us to examine how behavior covaries with symptoms of mental illness and will be the basis for scientific publications that will have immediate impact on the field of mental health. Third, in the long term, the data we will collect in this project will be used in machine learning approaches to ensure that CAMS will be able to accurately assess the mental health status of people from diverse communities.  

To meet these goals, we propose to partner with community-based organizations and leverage the Eureka platform to gather video data via smartphones from a large diverse sample (N=2000) of adults using CAMS. Given the large target sample, we intend to recruit outside UCSF patient populations. In this entirely remote study, we would use the Eureka platform for online consenting, remote administration of mental health symptom self-report scales, and remote video data collection. There will be two assessment points at least six months apart during which self-reported symptoms (e.g. depression, psychosis) will be assessed and responses to CAMS will be video recorded. This repeated measures design will allow us to parse between-person and within-person variability in symptoms of mental illness and behavioral responses.  On the backend, we will use our suite of behavioral analysis tools (see Fig. 2) to identify behaviors that significantly relate to self-reported mental health symptoms and establish how these relationships may differ between diverse populations.  In the short term, these data will improve our understanding of how emotional and cognitive behavior relate to current and future symptoms of mental illness, and in the long term, will allow us to improve CAMS’ ability to bring much-needed mental health resources to diverse communities.  At this time, we will focus on English-speaking participants, but we are currently planning a Spanish language version of CAMS. 

 Fig. 2

Fig. 2.  Data extracted by CAMS. We analyze three types of data from participant videos to create a snapshot of mental health status.

Our team is led by Josh Woolley, a psychiatrist and Assistant Professor with extensive experience assessing social and emotional behavior in people with mental illness and designing and conducting clinical trials. He also has experience remotely recruiting participants with mental illness for online studies. Dr. Woolley has salary support through a Career Development Award and project funding through 2020. Dr. Bradley is a psychiatrist and VA Research Fellow with experience running clinical trials and recruiting participants with psychosis both within UCSF and across the Bay Area community. Dr. Anderson is a postdoctoral fellow in the UCSF department of psychiatry, and is an expert on the assessment of emotions. He has previously partnered with Bay Area organizations that make outdoors experiences more accessible to underserved communities to study how nature can improve the mental health of at-risk youth. Together, our team has salary support and grant funding to cover participant compensation, project coordination, and cloud-based data storage through December of 2020. We also re-submitted a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, which received positive reviews, that would potentially fund CAMS for the next 5 years.  

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to add your proposal. Our selection committee has UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members and non-medical staff. While your proposal is well composed, a short, accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. Could you share a 150-word plain-language summary of your proposal?

Thanks, Brian! We have added a brief plain-language summary (also pasting here):

As mental health providers, we learn a lot about how our patients are doing from what they say, how their voices sound, and what kind of facial expressions they make. These behaviors can help us understand whether a patient is improving on a new medication, or whether they might be in crisis and need to be hospitalized. Unfortunately, in-person mental health evaluations are expensive and unstandardized, so access to them is limited and they can be biased. This is one reason why many communities are underserved by the mental health care system. Our team is using technology to objectively evaluate patients’ mental health using videos that they record themselves. To make sure that the technology serves many communities, we hope to partner with community-based organizations and Eureka to analyze video data from a large group of people that is diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Neat proposal!

Interesting proposal and agree that understanding the usability of CAMS in diverse populations could be very valuable. A couple of questions about how the rest of the proposal might work:

"In this entirely remote study, we would use the Eureka platform for online consenting, remote administration of mental health symptom self-report scales, and remote video data collection."  

Are you certain that Eureka currently has the capacity for remote video data collection? Have you considered other possibilities for collecting video? Could your existing solution be leveraged in conjunction with Eureka?

Also, could you expand on considerations the machine learning approaches described as possible in goal 3 might impact the diverse communities you plan to involve?


I assume there is a separate and independently-functioning CAMS app.  Native smartphone app?  iOS or Android or both or web portal only?  Eureka could be configured to send people to such an app.  I would think CAMS would have the video data collection functionality built in, and you don't need Eureka to do this?  Please clarify.

To clarify, there is indeed an independently functioning CAMS web app, but not native smartphone app. CAMS does have video data collection functionality built in, but if this could be incorporated into the Eureka platform that would be ideal. If that is not possible, Eureka can be used to direct participants to the CAMS web app.

Hi Patricia,

Thank you for these questions. I'll try to answer each below; please just let us know if you'd like any further clarification/elaboration.

The existing CAMS application already has the capacity for remote video data collection via a web portal. Ideally, we would like to incorporate video capture into the Eureka platform, and from our phone conversations with people on the Eureka team, it is possible that they might be interested in building out this functionality. This is exciting to us and would streamline data collection, but the project does not depend on it. We can always direct people from Eureka to the web app.  

Our goal is for CAMS to become a widely accessible tool that clinicians can use to help identify and track symptoms of mental health problems in people from diverse backgrounds. In the past, technology such as eye tracking and facial expression detection algorithms have been developed using data from non-diverse samples and were therefore limited in their ability to serve a broad range of populations. By collecting large amounts of data from diverse populations in these early stages of CAMS to be used as input in machine learning approaches we will be well-positioned to ultimately build a tool that will accurately identify mental health problems across diverse populations.  

Very interesting approach to evaluation of mental illness.  Will you be deliberately recruiting any UCSF patients (e.g., through clinic or EHR data querying), or just patients in the community?  Do the patients need to have symptoms of mental illness, or would you take anyone (in the interest of developing your "control" responses in CAMS)? 

Thank you, Mark. We are excited about the project and think it has the potential to be high-impact.

To answer your question, in order to develop the predictive power of CAMS we are interested in sampling people with a wide range of mental health statuses.  We would indeed recruit people in the community with symptoms of mental illness as well as those who do not endorse symptoms (to develop control responses, as you mentioned above). Since members of our team do have access to mental health clinics, our aim is to recruit from these settings as well. Ideally, this approach will yield a sample with no, mild, moderate, and more severe symptoms of mental illness as reported by standardized rating scales. We believe this will greatly faciliate the development of CAMS into a robust tool.

Questions:

1) would the CAMS be a stand alone assessment or be part of a larger assessment process that includes in-person / face to face interaction? 

2) As community members, if this is a stand alone assessment, we find it difficult to believe that community would want to be assessed in this manner. From a Latin@ standpoint, in person face to face interactions are so part of our cultural lifestyle. Even in mental health training, we know that relationship building is critical to receiving accurate information about a person. Rapport is so key to effective mental health interventions and ultimate treatment outcomes. There are so many nuances, includindg cultural cues, within any racial/ethnic group. 

Thank you for bringing up both of these questions, Angela. 

We do not believe that any remote assessment of a person's mental health status can ever be "stand alone." Ordering a panel of blood tests does not replace a visit to the primary care doctor's office--it provides critical, objective information that can lead to important adjustments in a patient's care. As psychiatrists, we are oriented first and foremost towards face-to-face interactions and building trust with patients over time. However, being solely dependent on in-person interactions for all of our data has major implications for some of our patients who, for example, have to skip a day of work to take a 2 hour bus trip each way in order to get to each appointment. While we do not wish to replace in-person interactions, we do want to complement them, as we believe this can improve access to close monitoring. Furthermore, we do not believe that subjective assessments alone are sufficient to serve our patients. When we read a fellow clinician's documentation describing a patient's affect at a visit one month ago as "somewhat labile", it is challenging to understand exactly what that means. Is that clinician's definition of "labile" the same as ours? Was there something about that interaction that could have led to a biased assessment of the patient's affect? How can we use this information to understand whether the patient is doing better or worse than they were one month ago? We believe there is value to bringing more objectivity into mental health assessment in order to guide treatment & bring us closer to the approaches used in other areas of medicine. Just as a primary care doctor reviews recent hemoglobin A1c results with a patient who has diabetes during a visit, we hope that in the future mental health care providers can sit with their patients and review data from assessments like CAMS.

Please let us know if this helps to address your concerns. 

Best,

Ellen, Josh, and Craig 

This is a very innovative idea!  I love the idea of using vocal and visual signals to capture non-spoken "language"!

As indicated in the proposal that the research team hopes to build "a platform that will serve diverse communities it is critical that data from those populations are adequately represented in the CAMS data". What about Asian Americans?  I hope there are plans for this study to include Asian Americans.   This method will be very useful in gathering data among Asian Americans, especially that mental health is such a stigmatized topic in the community. 

 

Thank you, Angela. We are excited to know that you think this could approach could serve the Asian American community.

It is really critical that Asian Americans are represented in the datasets that are used to build CAMS--making sure that we partner with people from different racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds is the only way that we think CAMS can be a useful tool. While technology that can capture these different behavioral signals is exciting, we know that leveraging it for effective patient care means that we have to avoid the well-known problem of using datasets from overwhelmingly white and male populations. We are looking forward to working with community-based organizations that can guide us in this process. 

Hi Ellen,

Glad to hear that the research team plans to include Asian Americans in the datasets.   

What are the team’s specific plans to collaborate with Asian community-based organizations?  

Has the team identified potential partners from the Asian American community?

Great idea!  It would be really helpful if we could have more objective ways of capturing mental status.  

Really interesting and potentially impactful. I have some comments and some questions.

1) As a primary care doctor, the phrase "mental status" does not mean "mental health" so the title threw me off--I thought you were doing a cognitive study.

2) For broad screening and assessment, in primary care, we use validated questionnaires such as PHQ-9 and GAD-7, and for CAMS to be used outside of psychiatric settings, whatever findings need to have some relations to these widely used tools. There is value in delineating more clearly the non-verbal and other types of communications, particularly in the context of culture and to train providers, but it would be hard to know what to do with all that information in terms of clinical care outside the psychiatric setting.

3) What are your plans to address people who have significant impairment in this study? Will participants receive any intervention at all? This is an important issue for participants from diverse communities, who often have trouble accessing care.

4) I think you do need to have in-person recruitment to have effective recruitment and retention with minorities. While the tool itself will hopefully save time and labor, the study will need the personal touch to recruit people who have distrust of the system and technology and view mental health issues as stigmatized. The only way to get around that is by having people they can relate to explain to them why this is important.

Tung, thank you for thoughtful questions. You raise points that we ourselves have grappled with when we think about where CAMS might be in 3-5 years: generalizing outside of psychiatric contexts; having a treatment pipeline set up to get resources to people who are in most need; interfacing with primary care physicians. These are all critical issues that will need to be done correctly if the long-term goal of CAMS is to be realized. However, as CAMS is still in early stages, we note that these are beyond the scope of the project for the next year. Our immediate goal is to run large number of people from diverse communities through the CAMS protocol to examine how expressive behaviors covary with symptoms of mental illness and how this relationship varies by cultural context. If CAMS is to be a useful tool for delivering high-quality mental health care to diverse communities in the future, we think this is the critical first step. It is worth stating explicitly that CAMS is not intended as a replacement for primary care physicians or mental health professionals. The phase of the project that we are proposing here is not designed to provide treatment (though we have crisis/emergency protocols in place to connect participants in all of our studies to urgent mental health care if necessary). Our intent is to build a tool that is cost-effective, scalable, and that fundamentally shifts the way we gather information about people’s mental status towards a more objective approach. While we look forward to the phase of the project that involves integrating CAMS into mental health and primary care settings, the current proposal is geared towards engaging the community in a data-gathering effort in order to make sure that CAMS can serve our patients’ needs in the future.

--Craig, Ellen, & Josh

Interesting concept!  Many of our current assessments have inherent limitations based on accessibility of potential normative samples to the researchers who are obtaining the normative data.  Using technology to break those barriers of access is a wonderful first step.

This virtual assistant would change triage, as we know it.  Thinking about the growing number of seniors, people using telehealth/home care, people living in rural areas, this could be so helpful to the social service industry.  I’m excited to see this proposal blossom.  

Thank you, Stephanie! We are also excited about the potential to make objective assessment more accessible for these populations.

Thank you for this very interesting proposal!  As your team mentions, implicit bias is a challenge in the assessment of patient health status, as well as in treatment of illness.  How might your team work to address implicit bais in study design and interpretation, including interpretation of community input?  Would your team be interested in, or capable of leveraging community input for designing how visual and audio data is interpreted by CAMS, or is the assumption that it is designed to perceive mental health cues without the implicit bias of researchers built into the app? How might the team beneft from the input of our community-based partners who could bring culturally-informed perspectives to the project, especially from communities disproportionately burdened by mental health disparities, byond assistance with recruitment?  

Thank you, Roberto. Implicit bias is such a critical issue in medicine that we are hoping to address with this study. Our approach is fundamentally data-driven; we are indeed aiming to minimize the impact of our bias that way and let the body of data, audio/video signals and people’s reports of their own symptoms, speak for itself. At this phase of development, we are not offering a treatment or intervention for the community, but rather asking the community to partner with us in a large data-gathering effort so that we can build an inclusive technology that will ultimately serve multiple communities. We believe this “data first” approach will yield the most impactful tool. Part of our motivation to structure the project this way comes out of experience using technology in our laboratory. We have eye-movement tracking equipment, for example, that can provide rich data to help us understand the pathophysiology of mental illness. But we’ve noticed that it only works reliably when used to track white people’s eyes--presumably because the technology was not developed with input and data from racially and ethnically diverse samples. Ideally, collecting large amounts of data from diverse communities in the proposed project, we help us identify markers of mental health problems that might be unique within each community and guide development of the technology itself. Given that each community has a unique perspective on interactions with the medical system and mental health care, we would definitely be interested in discussing our approach and plans with community representatives to get feedback and understand how we can strengthen the study.

--Craig, Ellen, & Josh

Thank you for this interesting and thought provoking proposal. I'm with my colleagues in that I believe there would need to be a relationship built in order for this to be effective, and I am intrigued by it. I also know that for Black/AA folks recording anything and sending it to "an institution" may be a very big ask due to much deserved criticism of medical instututions and structural and individual racism, and historic and not so historific horrific treatments. How might you see addressing this?

Thank you for this feedback, Monique. The comments and questions from you and your colleagues are really helping us to think critically about our project. We recognize that this is a big ask on our end, and that there are significant challenges to engaging community members in a large audio/video data-gathering effort. Particularly given the remote data collection approach, building trust with our participants is critical. We want to be transparent about the fact that we are not sure about the best way to do this, and would greatly appreciate input from different community representatives about strategies that might be helpful. We have thought about the possibility of holding Q&A sessions and demonstrations at community-based organizations and clinics to provide an informal forum for people to meet our team and discuss their concerns. We imagine, though, that there are other steps that we could take, and that the approach may vary depending on which community we are interfacing with. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to brainstorm more ideas with community representatives.

--Ellen, Craig, & Josh

Commenting is closed.

The Talking About Prostate Cancer (TAP) Study

Proposal Status: 

Research questions

Approximately 1 in 3 of prostate cancer diagnoses are classified as “low risk” and “very low risk” for disease progression and mortality. Active surveillance, that is, closely monitoring the course of disease, is a recommended management option for all men with very low risk and most men with low risk cancer. In the U.S., more than 100,000 men a year are estimated to be candidates for active surveillance, but only 40% of eligible men receive active surveillance. Despite the fact that prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men among all major racial/ethnic groups, there is very little known about the determinants of active surveillance and outcomes across racial/ethnic groups.

The research questions for this study are:

1)    What are provider experiences with and perceptions of racial/ethnic differences in patients’ preferences regarding active surveillance?

2)    What are patient perspectives and ethnic/cultural/psychosocial beliefs regarding active surveillance?

3)    What is the influence of patient and contextual (family, social networks, institutional/provider, neighborhood) factors on use of active surveillance?

4)    What are patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including quality of life and physical, physiological, and psychosocial well-being, at various time points after prostate cancer diagnosis?

To address these questions, the Talking About Prostate Cancer (TAP) study will establish a diverse population-based cohort of low risk prostate cancer patients that can be followed for future research inquiries, including examination of disease progression.This study, conducted within a range of medical care settings, will enable us to understand the factors that drive differences in active surveillance referral and utilization. In identifying vulnerable sub-populations, study results will inform culturally-targeted clinic-level policies and practices regarding patient communication and counseling, and ultimately ensuring that all men, regardless of race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (SES), have the opportunity to be fully informed about their treatment options and experience optimal wellness as a survivor.

An online engagement and data collection platform would allow this study to recruit and retain the diverse participants that are needed to answer the above research questions. Making data collection more efficient, streamlined, and culturally relevant will promote engagement from participants who are typically underrepresented in research projects. Finally, an online platform would facilitate the development of a diverse population-based cohort for future research studies.

The impact of the project on minority communities will be to: understand the unique factors that affect decision-making about treating prostate cancer; inform culturally-targeted clinic-level policies and practices directed towards improving patient communication and counseling; and ultimately, to support all men diagnosed with prostate cancer to make decisions about their treatment that will reflect the same positive outcomes across all racial/ethnic groups.

Study sample

This study will include a survey component among both prostate cancer patients and physicians in the Bay Area. We propose to use the Eureka platform only for the patient component of this study, thus, only the methods pertaining to patient participants are described here. Eligible patients will be identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (GBACR), a part of the statewide California Cancer Registry and the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) Program since 1973. Using an early case ascertainment method to identify cases within 6-9 months after diagnosis, eligible patients are those newly-diagnosed with very low risk or low risk first primary invasive prostate cancer, ages 40-79 years and residing in one of the nine Greater Bay Area counties at diagnosis. This age range was selected because it represents 95% of all cases, and treatment decisions are less confounded by comorbidities and life expectancies. We will recruit all non-White ethnic groups and a 20% sample of NH Whites. Of approximately 4,700 cases of invasive prostate cancer reported each year in the catchment region, more than 40% (N approximately 1,900) have very low or low risk disease. These patients include both UCSF patients and non-UCSF patients. We plan to recruit patients who speak English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), and Tagalog.

Measurements

The main survey constructs are listed in the Table. Tumor characteristics will be ascertained from the GBACR. Most domains will be based on established items, adapted accordingly based on a qualitative phase of the study, which will inform the survey development.

 

 

Table. TAP Study patient survey constructs

Independent variables

Outcomes – dependent variables

  • Tumor characteristics
  • Individual risk factors
  • Demographic information
  • Social relationships
  • Social context
  • Institutional context
  • Decisional   & psychological factors
 
  • Treatment - active surveillance, definitive treatment   (radiation, radical prostatectomy)
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Prostate-specific quality of life and symptoms
  • Disease progression
  • Recurrence

 

We will conduct a baseline survey within 2-3 months of diagnosis when the men are making their decision regarding their initial treatment. Follow-up surveys will be administered at 12- and 24-months after the baseline survey (approximately 15- and 27-months after diagnosis), selected to capture relevant clinical events in the trajectory of treatment and surveillance, such as  PSA measurement at 6 months and biopsy at 12 months following diagnosis, and to capture changes in PROs.

We currently have a study website available in 3 languages (English, Spanish, Chinese) for patient recruitment (tapstudy.ucsf.edu). The Eureka platform would be an ideal solution for tailoring our website with culturally-relevant content that would encourage participation, easily incorporate electronic consent for this minimal-risk protocol, and provide a stable self-administered survey platform in 4 languages (English, Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog). The Eureka platform would also enable us to offer links to suveys via computers or apps and could be programmed to notify participants when surveys are ready and notify study staff of important data collection issues, completion of surveys, and non-response flags. Simple, tested, stable platforms for this type of research are critical to engaging diverse populations and retaining their participation in the future.

Team

This research will be led by a multi-disciplinary team of collaborators with a productive history of research in prostate cancer, especially focused on disparities. The Principal Investigator, Dr. Scarlett Lin Gomez, Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (DEB) and Member of the HDFCCC, is a cancer epidemiologist at UCSF with experience in disparities research focusing on multi-dimensional social and cultural determinants of health. Dr. Iona Cheng, Associate Professor in DEB and Member of the HDFCCC, is a molecular epidemiologist whose research focuses on understanding the role of genetic, molecular, lifestyle, and neighborhood factors in relation to cancer risk and outcomes, with much of her research focused on prostate cancer. Dr. Shariff-Marco, Associate Professor in DEB and Member of the HDFCCC, is trained in social and behavioral sciences and conducts epidemiologic and mixed methods research aimed at addressing the role of social determinants of health, including neighborhood determinants, as it relates to cancer disparities in racial/ethnic groups. Dr. Janet Shim is Professor in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at UCSF, and brings expertise in sociology, psychology, qualitative and mixed methods research. Dr. Daphne Lichtensztajn is an epidemiologist with M.D. training, and is well-versed in cancer registry data, particularly clinical and diagnostic data on prostate cancer.  Additional study staff at UCSF include Mindy DeRouen, Laura Allen, Debora Oh, and Mei Chin Kuo.

Co-Investigators include urologic oncologists, Drs. James Brooks, Benjamin Chung, and John Leppert, from Stanford School of Medicine, and Drs. Peter Carroll and Matthew Cooperberg from UCSF; Dr. Robert Haile from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Weiva Sieh from Mt. Sinai; Qian Lu from MD Anderson; and Dominick Frosch from Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute.

We have assembled a racially/ethnically-diverse 4-member patient advisory group to help with input on our survey measures, recruitment plans and website design. We will work with HDFCCC to engage with community partners to inform communities about the research, encourage participation, and distribute findings that could impact men’s experience of prostate cancer in the future (e.g., information sessions tailored to issues learned from the results of this study). 

Funding

This study is funded through the National Cancer Institute (R01CA211141) from August 2017-July 2022. The direct cost budget per year is about $500,000 (minus a 17% budget reduction applied by the NCI). The timing for the e-cohort initiative fits in well with our study as we are beginning the qualitative phase of the study and will begin the patient cohort recruitment in early 2019. Per our timeline, we will begin developing the survey for the patient cohort in upcoming months.

Comments

Thank you for taking the time to add your proposal. Our selection committee has UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members and non-medical staff. While your proposal is well written, a short, accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. Could you share a 150-word plain-language summary of your ideas?

Active surveillance is an accepted management option for all men with very low risk and most men with low risk prostate cancer, particularly as definitive treatments including radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy are associated with significant treatment-associated problems including bowel, urinary, and sexual dysfunction. However, about less than half of eligible men receive active surveillance, with variations by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Conducted within a population-based setting with an inclusive range of medical care settings, the Talking About Prostate (TAP) cancer study will: 1) Examine active surveillance perspectives of clinicians who treat diverse prostate cancer patients; 2) Examine treatment decision-making processes by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; and 3) Compare patient-reported outcomes (such as physical and mental quality of life) by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and contributions of factors such as family and social networks. Results will enable understanding of contributing factors at multiple levels that drive the gaps in active surveillance.

Hello - I am working with Dr. Gomez on this proposal. We added the below in the "Summary" section of the form, but I am not seeing it here. So I am adding in this comment as well. Please let me know if we should submit otherwise. Thanks!

Summary:

The Talking About Prostate (TAP) cancer study will investigate:

1) Clinician perspectives on racial/ethnic differences in patients’ preferences about active surveillance.

2) Patient perspectives and ethnic/cultural/psychosocial beliefs about active surveillance.

3) The influence of patient, family, social networks, etc., on use of active surveillance.

4) Outcomes such as quality of life and well-being after prostate cancer diagnosis. 

This study will enable us to better understand differences in active surveillance usage. Study results will inform clinic-level interventions, and ultimately help all men be well-informed about their treatment options.

Thank you Laura. The Summary section shows on the top-level opportunity page where all the proposals are listed. It's perfectly fine to have it here too though. 

Exciting and important project!  One of things I'm a little unclear on is whether you really need Eureka for this.  It sounds like you will be doing some in-person work anyway, and already have an online presence?  What will Eureka actually add to your project?  How would you do the study if you don't get the Diverse eCohorts support and don't otherwise engage with Eureka?

Hello - I am working with Dr. Gomez on this study and am responding as she is on vacation this week. 

While we have a study website, we do not have a platform for data collection. We think Eureka would facilitate recruitment and retention of participants improving response rates over the longitudinal aspect of the study (beyond baseline, we are interested in collecting data at 12 and 24 months).  Eureka would also facilitate the development of a diverse population-based cohort for future research studies.

If we do not get support from Eureka, we are likely to design an online survey using the REDCap system.

Will you be deliberately recruiting any UCSF patients (e.g., via clinic or EHR-based querying), or just from the community/GBACR?

Hello - I am working with Dr. Gomez on this study and am responding as she is on vacation this week. 

While these participants may include UCSF patients, we have proposed to use case listings from GBACR as the primary recruitment method.

thank you for your submission. a few questions,

1) aside from providing comments here, how else do you see the community advisors helping you with your study?

2) how do you intend to promote the study among the latin@ community, especially among the diverse latinx male population? Immigrants - monolingual spanish / english only men?  uninsured and immigrant males are at sometimes a difficult population to reach.

3) what N (number) are you looking for in your study and do you have priority target populations? this can help customize 

4) do you have plans to share research findings with the community stakeholders doing health work in the communities where patients are being recruited?

5) what considerations are you taking for understanding the regional and/or cultural differences within the populations - linguistic preferences for questions, - are questions culturally informed? have they been pilot tested with target group you hope to recruit?

Note on translation -- standard protocol should be used - translation - back translation process =  too often, translations are not vetted appropriately - staff are asked to translate but requires a thorough process

 

Thank you for these questions. Below please find response to each question.

1) In addition to input from our Patient Advisors (one representing each racial/ethnic group), we envision engaging community advisors to help with ensuring that our outreach materials and approaches will be culturally appropriate and acceptable.

2) Potentially eligible patients will be identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, thus, we will not need to promote the study to a general population. We will ensure that our recruitment materials are culturally and linguistically appropriate and acceptable so as to maximize response rates. All materials and scripts have been translated and independently back-translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog, so we will be able to target monolingual men in these languages. We will be able to compare some demographic and clinical characteristics of respondents to non-respondents using cancer registry data. If we find that our response rates are biased in not adequately representing certain underserved populations, we will seek guidance from our patient and community advisors about alternative approaches to optimize response rates in these underserved groups.

3) We aim to recruit a total of 931 men (anticipating a response rate of 60% from all eligible patients (N=1552) from the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry), including 160 African Americans, 265 Latinos, 234 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and 272 non-Hispanic Whites. We will be contacting all eligible non-White men, and a 10% sample of non-Hispanic White men. Our priority target populations are non-White populations.

4) We plan to share our study findings with the urology community by publishing our results in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and presenting findings at scientific conferences. In addition, we will develop a newsletter summarizing our results and distributing this, in addition to the scientific articles, to all urologists in the Greater Bay Area.

5) We are currently in the process of developing our baseline survey. To the extent possible, we will use established and validated tools (particularly those that have been validated in non-English languages), such as EPIC and PROMISE for assessing patient-reported outcomes, and from the PhenX toolkit (https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/). Most survey items used for assessing sociodemographic domains (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration, acculturation, language, sexual orientation and gender identity, etc) will be adapted from our prior study, STARS, in which these items were cognitively tested in 6 languages (https://cancerregistry.ucsf.edu/stars-study). Further, we will work with our patient and community advisors to ensure that the survey questions are culturally and linguistically appropriate and acceptable to the target populations.

Re: translations, we use a strict forward- and back-translation process for all of our patient materials. The back-translations are conducted by different individuals from those conducting the forward translations. For Tagalog, given the conversational nature of the spoken and written language among Pilipino Americans, we have taken the additional step of consulting with a native Pilipino American to review and adjust the translated version of materials.

Thank you,

Scarlett Lin Gomez

What are the plans for outcome dissemination to the respective communities?

Are there plans to translate the findings into interventions?

Good to see that the study website is translated in Chinese, but some of the content is somewhat difficult to understand to native Chinese-speakers due to literal translation.  Are there any plan to polish the translation?  By the way, has the Chinese verison of the website been focus group tested? 

What are the plans for promoting the study website among immigrant (Chinese, Filipino) communities?  

 

 

Dear Angela,

Thank you for your question. Please see below for our responses.

1) Outcome dissemination:

In addition to dissemination of study findings to scientific and medical audiences (e.g., urologists), we will disseminate results to lay communities via presentations at community forums. As with our prior studies, we are open and willing to share our results as opportunities arise.

2) Translation into interventions:

We absolutely inted for the finding from our study to translate into meaningful and effective improvements in the appropriate uptake of active surveillance, or at least to ensure that all men, regardless of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, etc, have the opportunity to be adequately informed about their options for active surveillance. The identification of influential multilevel factors including patient-provider communications, institutional characteristics, and family and social networks will inform the development of intervention strategies to ensure that all subpopulations among the more than 2 million survivors have the opportunity to be fully informed about their treatment options and to experience optimal wellness as a survivor. For example, study results may inform culturally-targeted clinic-level policies and practices directed towards improving patient communication and counseling.

3) Website translations:

The website was translated into Chinese by a study staff member who is a native speaker and has done several front and back Chinese-language translations for us on previous studies. The translated content was then back-translated by a different native speaker staff. The method used was somewhat literal as our understanding was that translations should be as similar to English content as possible, for IRB considerations. That said, our goal with the website is to be as accessible to monolingual Chinese-speaking participants as possible. To that end, we are currently working on a more conversational version. While the Chinese-language website has not been focus group tested, we will ask participants in our one-on-one qualitative interviews to comment on its content.

4) Promoting the study website:

Potentially eligible patients will be identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, thus, we will not need to promote the study to a general population.

Thanks for this proposal.  In addition to disseminating resuts as opportunties arise, if community partners are interested in partnering to disseminate findings, for example, by developing education materials that could be shared with and by lay health workers in impacted communities, would your study team have the interest or capacity to do this without more support than this grant could provide?

Dear Roberto,

Thank you for this idea. Yes, we absolutely would be interested in partnering with community partners to disseminate findings.

Scarlett

Thanks for submitting this great proposal. My questions are:

1) Diverse eCohorts does not have Tagalog language capabilities. Will you have the support to create the Eureka platform for that language?

2) Management of low-risk prostate cancer patients varies, by individual patient preference and by physician practice patterns. In addition, since minorities may get care from facilities that may not have the highest quality of care.  Other than collecting data, is there a plan to educate patients or monitor their treatment and give feedback when the situation is sub-optimal?

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

Thank you for these great questions.

1. Yes, we would have the Tagalog language capabilities on our team to provide the translated versions for the portal. We have been using a language translation service in addition to Tagalog-speaking staff for the Tagalog translations of our study materials. We are in the process of recruiting a Tagalog-speaking interviewer who would serve as an additional translator for study materials.

2. This is an excellent question! Our study is currently funded as an observational study, and thus, there are currently no plans within this funded project to incorporate an intervention component. If we encounter patients who are not receiving standard of care and/or indicate to us as a part of the study that they are in need of support (logistical, psychosocial, treatment-related, etc), we will refer them to a list of local resources, and if needed, consult with the IRB office regarding whether additional interventions may be needed.

Moreover, we do intend to apply our study findings toward efforts to inform both providers and future patients about active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. In addition to the efforts targeted towards providers as described previously in a response to a prior reviewer, we will work with community organizations to disseminate our results to the lay communities. If the results seem to lend themselves to an intervention needing to be tested, we would seek to partner with a collaborator to develop a study to test this intervention.

Scarlett

The prospect of results influencing policy is very interesting.  Does the research team envision those policies as strictly clinical?  What expertise will the team leverage, either in-house or via partnership, toward shaping and disseminating policy proposals?

Dear Roberto,

This is an interesting question! While we do currently anticipate that the most effective channels to apply our results towards improving uptake of active surveillance is likely through clinical practice, especially among underserved patients, I think you raise an interesting idea regarding translations via policy proposals. I believe there are likely policy expertise in-house or via partnership, with whom we could partner to target these disparities through proposing policy changes. One potential external partner is the American Cancer Society, as well as the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). As a member of the ASCO Health Disparities Committee, this would be an ideal venue for proposing and drafting policies and guidelines.

Scarlett

I deeply appreciate the research questions, and see them as driving potential change if as my colleagues spoke about the results (of which I am making certain assumptions) can impact multiple systemic changes as well as advance attitudes towards intervetion, prevention and treatment options/active surveillance.

My concerns:

1) With the on-line surveys as typically your participants age range will be 55+ and the comfort with online platforms. How do you imagine getting around this?

2) Given this is such a deeply personal and emotionally laden subject matter - how do you anticipate getting a rich data sample?

 

 

Dear Monique,

Thank you for these comments. Our thoughts are as follows.

1) Based on recent population surveys, it is certainly he case that internet usage is more prevalent with younger age. However, surveys such as those from the PEW show that a substantial and increasing proportion of older populations do access the internet and related technologies. In our own prior research with Asian Americans, we found that among those older than age  50, more than two-thirds reported accessing the internet and being receptive to participating in health research online. We also found in two other pilot studies that older adults were receptive to and successfully participated in health surveys using ecological momentary assessment, receiving prompts via text or email to a series of short online surveys. We have conducted several large scale studies involving the use of internet surveys and have found that older populations do seem receptive to this modality. That said, we will also offer other modalities for completing the surveys, including by phone or in person with an interviewer, and via paper/pencil.

2) Potential eligible patients will be identified through our region’s population-based Cancer Registry aN’s we plan to oversample racial/ethnic minority groups, to ensure adequate representation of diverse populations. Our staff who will engage with the participants are from the same target racial/ethnic groups and can speak Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Tagalog. In developing our survey items, we will start with established measures that have been used in prior research, but will also develop new measures or adapt existing measures based on findIngs from qualitative research with patients and providers. With these approaches, we hope to be able to collect a rich source of data from a diverse population that can be used to meaningfully inform clinical guidelines or other means to reduce disparities in active surveillance use.

Thank you,

Scarlett

Commenting is closed.

Asian Pacific Islander And Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes: A Prospective Study (PANDA Study)

Primary Author: Priscilla Hsue
Proposal Status: 

Asian Americans are among the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States, projected to comprise nearly 40 million individuals by 20601 in six main subgroups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Indian (U.S. Census Bureau 2015).1 The San Francisco Bay Area has one of the largest and most diverse Asian populations in America, approaching 2 million individuals in its five core counties (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa). Individuals age 65 and older are projected to compose 30% of the growing Asian American community in Santa Clara County by 2060—the highest proportion of seniors in any ethnic category—indicating an urgent need to understand and improve cardiovascular health in this population and each of its subgroups.2

The cardiovascular health of Asian Americans has been less thoroughly investigated than that of other ethnic groups3, but observational studies indicate that rates of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) vary considerably between each subgroup of national origin.4 Prior studies show that Asian Americans exhibit elevated rates of type II diabetes and that Korean-, Japanese-, and Filipino-Americans are at especially high risk, with local diabetes prevalence of 16%, 13%, and 13%, respectively.2, 4 Incidence of diabetes and metabolic syndrome5 increases at lower body mass index (BMI) in Asian Americans than in other ethnic groups, causing an observed diabetes prevalence that is 60% higher than non-Hispanic whites after adjustment for BMI.6 Dyslipidemia, a major risk factor for heart attack or stroke, occurs at higher rates among Asian Americans in Northern California, varying considerably between each subgroup and likely exacerbated by lower rates of treatment than among non-Hispanic whites.7, 8 Prediction of cardiovascular disease risk among Asian Americans is notably less accurate, since the Framingham Risk Score and other risk calculators may poorly model disease incidence and therefore require ethnic-specific refinements to improve applicability to this population and its subgroups.3

Several trends have highlighted the critical need for a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying CVD risk in this population. A recent study in Los Angeles County found that rates of hypertension among Asian Americans increased by 18% between 2005 and 2015 and noted an especially high prevalence among Filipinos (32.7%) and Vietnamese (35.1%).9 Diabetes prevalence has also risen, especially among Filipinos, and presents at lower BMI than non-Hispanic whites.10 Although subgroup-specific data is limited, studies of total Asian Americans have shown that proportionate mortality for many cardiovascular diseases is elevated and rates of health improvement are slower than among non-Hispanic whites.11

In order to understand these divergences in cardiovascular risk, we propose a prospective cohort study that will evaluate the underlying mechanisms of elevated CVD in Asian Americans. The purpose of this proposal is to initiate an internet-enhanced research project using the Eureka Mobile Health platform at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFG) and UCSF in order to build the foundation of our cohort and obtain critical preliminary data for NIH grant proposals along with data to advocate for possible donor/philanthropic support in the near future. Our group will adapt the well-established infrastructure that allows us to undertake cardiovascular research within the diverse HIV/AIDS community at ZSFG to study the unique mechanisms underlying CVD in the Asian American population with the ultimate goal of improving cardiovascular health. 

Study Design: Initial Cohort of Chinese- and Filipino-Americans in San Francisco

We plan to follow a model similar to the Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) Study at UCSF, which is an ongoing prospective cohort study of cardiovascular health specifically among Indian- and Pakistani-Americans.12 We will leverage existing research infrastructure established by Dr. Priscilla Hsue at Zuckerberg San Francisco General, which she uses to conduct many prospective studies and clinical trials in individuals with HIV. This project will be covered initially using Dr. Hsue’s discretionary funds for preliminary data in order to demonstrate feasibility of recruitment and study design. After completing this initial study, we plan to apply for NIH grants to support a larger cohort study utilizing the same infrastructure provided by Eureka Mobile Health platform.

We will begin with an initial cohort of 50 Chinese-Americans and 50 Filipino-Americans recruited through UCSF, SFGH, and local community partners such as North East Medical Services (NEMS), the Chinatown Public Health Clinic, the Asian Health Institute, and the Asian American Research Center on Health. Potential participants will be screened according to 1) Chinese or Filipino ancestry, defined by ≥3 grandparents born in China/Taiwan or the Philippines, respectively; 2) age between 40 and 79 years; 3) ability to speak and/or read English, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Tagalog. Individuals will be excluded from our study according to the same criteria used in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and MASALA studies12; namely, we will not enroll those with prior history of major adverse cardiovascular events, ongoing cancer diagnosis, life expectancy under 5 years due to any illness, impaired cognitive capacity, or plans to leave the study region.13

After enrollment, our study team will use the Eureka Mobile Health platform to administer a detailed questionnaire gathering information about dietary habits, lifestyle factors, medical history, and socioeconomic circumstances for each participant. Given the unique challenges faced by our population of interest, we will also assess culturally relevant topics like primary language, country/province of origin, timeline of residence in the United States, use of traditional medicine, effects of discrimination,14, 15 and other measures of acculturation that are known to affect health outcomes in ethnic minority populations.16 A baseline visit at ZSFG will include vitals and anthropometric measurements. We will also draw and store blood from participants for future testing of genomic, metabolomic, proteomic, and inflammatory markers.

Individuals will be recruited to use the KardiaMobile home EKG monitor, which has been shown to accurately detect atrial fibrillation burden in recent studies.17 These participants will also receive home monitoring devices for blood pressure and Ziopatch monitoring.  All participants will use the monitoring devices for 6 months. We will link output data from each of these mobile devices with the questionnaire data mentioned above using the Eureka Mobile Health platform. Previous studies have shown that usage of home monitoring or smartphone engagement devices positively influences rates of diagnosis18-20 and improves treatment compliance, healthy behavioral modifications, and utilization of healthcare resources.21-23 Interventions that increase access, diagnosis, and treatment are especially important in the Asian American population, since previous studies have shown reduced access to healthcare within some Asian subgroups.24, 25

Our primary goal is to provide better insight into risk factors and develop interventional modalities for improving Asian American cardiovascular health. This initial cohort will also allow us to gather critical preliminary data for a future grant submission to support a larger cohort study. With expanded funding, we hope to assess lipids, inflammatory markers, and metabolic measurements alongside genetic profiling, proteomics, and other newer markers of cardiovascular health such as clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). In order to probe the underlying mechanism of CVD in the Asian population, we plan to evaluate coronary artery calcium and plaque burden using CT angiography, along with assessment of carotid intima media thickness to evaluate vascular disease.  We plan to assess the association between clinical characteristics gathered using the Eureka Mobile Health platform and these imaging indices in order to better understand the pathophysiology underlying increased CV risk in Asian American individuals.  As a corollary to this work, we hope to establish a center of cardiovascular excellence for the Asian American population, which can provide clinical care for Asians with underlying CVD.  In addition, this clinic could serve as the impetus for launching implementation studies in the future aimed at risk reduction including smoking cessation, BP control, lipid control, diet and exercise.  Importantly, our research effort and clinical center would also provide significant research and clinical opportunities for trainees in the future. 

 

References:

1.            Colby SL and Ortman JM. Projections of the size and composition of the US population: 2014 to 2060: Population estimates and projections. 2017.

2.            Santa Clara County Public Health. Asian and Pacific Islander Health Assessment: Executive Summary. 2017.

3.            Palaniappan LP, Araneta MRG, Assimes TL, Barrett-Connor EL, Carnethon MR, Criqui MH, Fung GL, Narayan KV, Patel H and Taylor-Piliae RE. Call to action: cardiovascular disease in Asian Americans: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;122:1242-1252.

4.            Hastings KG, Jose PO, Kapphahn KI, Frank AT, Goldstein BA, Thompson CA, Eggleston K, Cullen MR and Palaniappan LP. Leading Causes of Death among Asian American Subgroups (2003-2011). PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124341.

5.            Palaniappan LP, Wong EC, Shin JJ, Fortmann SP and Lauderdale DS. Asian Americans have greater prevalence of metabolic syndrome despite lower body mass index. International journal of obesity (2005). 2011;35:393-400.

6.            McNeely MJ and Boyko EJ. Type 2 diabetes prevalence in Asian Americans: results of a national health survey. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:66-69.

7.            Zhao B, Jose PO, Pu J, Chung S, Ancheta IB, Fortmann SP and Palaniappan LP. Racial/ethnic differences in hypertension prevalence, treatment, and control for outpatients in northern California 2010-2012. American journal of hypertension. 2015;28:631-9.

8.            Frank AT, Zhao B, Jose PO, Azar KM, Fortmann SP and Palaniappan LP. Racial/ethnic differences in dyslipidemia patterns. Circulation. 2014;129:570-9.

9.            Du Y, Shih M, Lightstone AS and Baldwin S. Hypertension among Asians in Los Angeles County: Findings from a multiyear survey. Preventive medicine reports. 2017;6:302-306.

10.          Shih M, Du Y, Lightstone AS, Simon PA and Wang MC. Stemming the tide: rising diabetes prevalence and ethnic subgroup variation among Asians in Los Angeles County. Preventive medicine. 2014;63:90-5.

11.          Jose PO, Frank AT, Kapphahn KI, Goldstein BA, Eggleston K, Hastings KG, Cullen MR and Palaniappan LP. Cardiovascular disease mortality in Asian Americans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2486-94.

12.          Kanaya AM, Kandula N, Herrington D, Budoff MJ, Hulley S, Vittinghoff E and Liu K. Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) study: objectives, methods, and cohort description. Clinical cardiology. 2013;36:713-720.

13.          Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, Folsom AR, Greenland P, Jacob DR, Jr., Kronmal R, Liu K, Nelson JC, O'Leary D, Saad MF, Shea S, Szklo M and Tracy RP. Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:871-81.

14.          Gee GC, Spencer MS, Chen J and Takeuchi D. A nationwide study of discrimination and chronic health conditions among Asian Americans. American journal of public health. 2007;97:1275-82.

15.          Chae DH, Takeuchi DT, Barbeau EM, Bennett GG, Lindsey JC, Stoddard AM and Krieger N. Alcohol disorders among Asian Americans: associations with unfair treatment, racial/ethnic discrimination, and ethnic identification (the national Latino and Asian Americans study, 2002-2003). Journal of epidemiology and community health. 2008;62:973-9.

16.          Fox M, Thayer Z and Wadhwa PD. Assessment of acculturation in minority health research. Social science & medicine (1982). 2017;176:123-132.

17.          Bumgarner JM, Lambert CT, Hussein AA, Cantillon DJ, Baranowski B, Wolski K, Lindsay BD, Wazni OM and Tarakji KG. Smartwatch Algorithm for Automated Detection of Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2381-2388.

18.          Steinhubl SR, Waalen J, Edwards AM, Ariniello LM, Mehta RR, Ebner GS, Carter C, Baca-Motes K, Felicione E, Sarich T and Topol EJ. Effect of a Home-Based Wearable Continuous ECG Monitoring Patch on Detection of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation: The mSToPS Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama. 2018;320:146-155.

19.          Halcox JPJ, Wareham K, Cardew A, Gilmore M, Barry JP, Phillips C and Gravenor MB. Assessment of Remote Heart Rhythm Sampling Using the AliveCor Heart Monitor to Screen for Atrial Fibrillation: The REHEARSE-AF Study. Circulation. 2017;136:1784-1794.

20.          Chan NY and Choy CC. Screening for atrial fibrillation in 13 122 Hong Kong citizens with smartphone electrocardiogram. Heart. 2017;103:24-31.

21.          Hurling R, Catt M, Boni MD, Fairley BW, Hurst T, Murray P, Richardson A and Sodhi JS. Using internet and mobile phone technology to deliver an automated physical activity program: randomized controlled trial. Journal of medical Internet research. 2007;9:e7.

22.          Kim BH and Glanz K. Text messaging to motivate walking in older African Americans: a randomized controlled trial. American journal of preventive medicine. 2013;44:71-5.

23.          Hartmann-Boyce J, Stead LF, Cahill K and Lancaster T. Efficacy of interventions to combat tobacco addiction: Cochrane update of 2013 reviews. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2014;109:1414-25.

24.          Ye J, Mack D, Fry-Johnson Y and Parker K. Health care access and utilization among US-born and foreign-born Asian Americans. Journal of immigrant and minority health. 2012;14:731-7.

25.          Chen J, Vargas-Bustamante A and Ortega AN. Health care expenditures among Asian American subgroups. Medical care research and review : MCRR. 2013;70:310-29.

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to submit. Would it be possible for you to share a 150-word plain language summary of your idea? How would you describe this to your next door neighbor?

Our selection committee has both UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members so a short accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. 

Thank you, Patricia. We have now added a brief summary of the study.

I like the idea of recruiting at both UCSF and ZSFGH sites, as well as the community.  I understand that this is primarily designed as a pilot to see if you can actually use Eureka to recruit diverse participants for the cohort.  Assuming you are successful in recruiting, and understanding that cohort studies can lead to lots of different research analyses, what will be the FIRST research question you try to answer?  Would you be able to do this analysis without the additional NIH funding that you will be seeking?

Thank you for your questions. 

We plan to begin by evaluating the rates at which Chinese- and Filipino-American participants achieve AHA-recommended guidelines for blood pressure and cholesterol with mobile health interventions. As funding allows, we may wish to add matched participants from non-Asian ethnicities in order to allow for cross-cohort comparisons. We are able to support this initial pilot study using our group's discretionary funds. In addition to applying for NIH grants, we will seek foundation support going forward.

 

Will your local community partners be compensated for helping with the recruitment?

In the future proposal to NIH, will your community partners be included in your budget?

Are there plans to build research capacity of your community partners?  

Welcomed the very specific criteria of your sample... a few thoughts/questions

1) have you already pilot tested your questions to ensure culturally and linguistically accuracy for population you are studying?

2) have you considered including phones in budget?

3) glad to see the residency timeline factor included in criteria...works as proxy for generational status potentially -- are you considering SES as variable in analysis?

 

The acronym (PANDA) for the study seems very stereotyping.  I hope that the research team will consider using a different acronym.

Thank you for this important idea/proposal. I have a couple of questions.

1) While Diverse eCohorts has capacity to assist with Chinese American patients, there is no Filipino community partner at this time. Do you have a community partner?

2) As one of the MASALA leads is Dr. Alka Kanaya at UCSF, are you partnering with her or members of her team?

3) The proposed cohort is small, with expansion and sustainability depending on an unclear funding path. What do you think is innovative and impactful in terms of research questions (other than the population) that would lead to the next step of funding from the NIH/NHLBI?

Thanks for this proposal.  

What incentives do you propose for participants?  In addition to any monetary incentives, will participants get access to any health education?  If so, will health education be tailored specific to questionaire responses?

Thank you for the proposal, it appears to be an important proposal given the data that is currently under-represented and the potential impact for future intervention opportunities. I am interested in your responses to all the the questions asked above by my colleagues and look forward to learning more.

 

Commenting is closed.

Pilot Test & Feasibility of a Digital Lifestyle Cohort of Diverse Individuals with Cancer

Proposal Status: 

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY - A common question that people ask after they find out they have cancer is: “What can I do to keep the cancer from spreading or coming back?” Our study aims to find answers for the millions of people worldwide who live with cancer. We will use the Internet to collect information on individual characteristics (such as age, race, where people live, who they live with, education, etc), cancer care and other diseases, and about daily life (for example, what people eat, how much they exercise and sleep, if they use any natural products or supplements or meditate, what their religious beliefs are, etc). If we can enroll a diverse group of people and follow them for several years, we will examine if different lifestyle practices lead to better cancer outcomes or can improve how people feel. To start, we will enroll people with prostate, bladder, and colorectal cancer. We will share what we learn on our website, for participants and the general public. 

RESEARCH QUESTION -  Our goal is to study if diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors can improve quality-of-life (QOL), prognosis, and overall health of people living with cancer. Given the heterogeneous nature of cancer, we hypothesize that customizing lifestyle recommendations and tools to patients’ cancer site, socio-demographics, culture, treatments, tumor features, habits, and preferences will maximize uptake and benefit. To support this goal, we are building a novel technology-enhanced cohort that will collect detailed data on diet, exercise, sedentary habits, complementary alternative medicine practices, spiritual beliefs, sleep quality, socio-demographics, immigration history, co-morbidities, and other factors. We will follow participants for general and cancer-specific QOL and clinical outcomes (e.g., treatment-specific progression, metastasis, death) through long-term periodic medical chart review and National Death Index and cancer registry searches. These rich data will support multiple research studies across a broad range of topics. We will start by pilot testing the feasibility and acceptability of our recruitment methods, study format (digital), survey questions, and request for long-term follow-up among 300 diverse individuals with prostate, bladder, or colorectal cancer. We anticipate making iterative improvements after this pilot phase, and that through collaboration, the cohort will be comprised of sub-cohorts of thousands of individuals with various cancer types in the future.

This study will address two major gaps in the medical literature – the lack of data on lifestyle habits after a cancer diagnosis and its impact on subsequent QOL and clinical outcomes; and the lack of diversity in cohorts that have collected comprehensive lifestyle data. In the US, African Americans (AA) have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group for most cancer types. Approximately 190,000 AAs are diagnosed with cancer annually. There are extremely limited data on the impact of lifestyle factors on psychosocial and clinical outcomes in AAs with cancer. Thus, focused study on post-diagnostic lifestyle factors, and its influences on cancer outcomes, in particular among AA’s, is warranted.

This cohort was approved in 2016 to be built by the UCSF Health ePeople team on the Eureka Research Platform (Eureka) (NIH-funded 5U2CEB021881-02). A digital cohort has several potential advantages, such as reduced infrastructure costs and labor. However, a limitation may be the generalizability, due to the “digital divide”- i.e., inequity with regards to access to or use of the Internet and information and communication technology, based on age, education, income, or race. Thus, it is important to pilot test the feasibility and acceptability of this digital cohort in diverse groups, and collect data on barriers and facilitators to participation, for iterative improvements. Thus, we propose to address the following questions:

1. What is the feasibility and acceptability of a digital lifestyle cohort in adults with prostate, bladder, or colorectal cancer using online (e.g., email blasts, website ads, etc) or print-based (e.g., mass mailings using cancer registry or APEX queries, brochures in clinics, etc) recruitment methods? We will analyze response, enrollment, and survey completion rates overall and by socio-demographic factors. We will query participants on ways to improve the online study, assess the ability to obtain electronic vs. paper medical records, and assess feasibility of consent for long-term follow-up.

2. What are the best ways to engage and enroll older adults and under-represented groups into a digital cohort? We will develop and test methods for outreach to and enrollment of older adults and diverse populations, including AA’s. Based on experience, we anticipate the potential need for in-person assistance to engage and educate some groups about clinical research and the study, prior to enrollment, and for technology support. With this proposal, we welcome the opportunity to work with experts on community outreach and enrollment of under-represented populations.

STUDY SAMPLEWe aim to enroll ~200 men with prostate, and 50 individuals with bladder and 50 with colorectal cancer (Ntotal~300). Individuals will be over 18, need to have access to the Internet, and consent to medical record follow-up, and completion of online surveys (see Table 1). We welcome the opportunity to translate our materials into other languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, and Russian. This study will be open to individuals managed anywhere, including UCSF. For the initial pilot, we will not restrict enrollment based on disease status or clinical criteria, and will collect data on such clinical parameters for future planning.

We also welcome the opportunity to collaborate with community partners and other researchers to add other measures that gather data on individual, structural, and environmental barriers to physical activity and healthy nutrition. For example, we may add questions about adverse life course events or utilize tools to map out the communities with regards to how conducive they are to support exercise and healthy food choices.

We are initiating the study in the proposed cancer sites, given the public health burden and our team’s experience. Prostate cancer is the 2nd most common cancer in men worldwide. In US men, it is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and second-leading cause of cancer death, with 164,690 new diagnoses and 29,430 deaths estimated to occur in 2018. There are ~2.8 million men living with prostate cancer in the US. AA men experience the highest burden of prostate cancer worldwide, with 74% higher incidence and twice the mortality compared to whites. 140,250 new cases and 50,630 deaths due to colorectal cancer are estimated to occur in 2018. 1.2 million people live with colorectal in the US (the third most common cancer among US cancer survivors). Bladder cancer is the 4th most common cancer in men, and 81,190 new diagnoses and 17,240 bladder cancer deaths will occur in 2018.

Table 1. Proposed Surveys & Source of Surveys to be Administered on Eureka Platform*

Topic

Survey Source

Socio-Demographics, Smoking

Eureka

Medical History, Family History

CaPSURE & Health Professionals Follow-up Study

Diet, Exercise/Sedentary habits

Harvard cohorts and CHARRED

CAM

CaPSURE

Sleep Quality

Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index 

Memory / Cognition

Nurses’ Health Study

General & Cancer specific QOL

SF-12 & Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information Systems Depression & Anxiety

Cancer specific QOL & Anxiety

e.g., EPIC-26, QLQ-C30, & MAX-PC

*Each survey will be administered ~annually, though some may be less frequent (e.g., diet asked every 4 years), while others may be more frequent (cancer-specific quality of life, every 6 months). Surveys administration will be staggered such that participants are pinged ~ quarterly.

OUR TEAM - Our team has outstanding experience in recruitment, enrollment, and follow-up of people with cancer, including diverse populations. For each of our initial proposed cancer types, we have an epidemiologist and a clinician co-lead (Drs. June Chan & Peter Carroll, prostate cancer; Drs. Stacey Kenfield & Sima Porten, bladder cancer; Drs. Erin Van Blarigan & Alan Venook, colorectal cancer). We have also engaged leaders in cancer health disparities research, Drs. Rena Pasick and Nynikka Palmer. Drs. Chan, Kenfield, and Van Blarigan are cancer epidemiologists and have led and implemented multiple cohorts and randomized clinical trials of individuals with prostate or colorectal cancer. Drs. Carroll and Venook lead the prostate and gastrointestinal cancer programs (respectively) of the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC); and each has long-standing experience in clinical trials, patient enrollment, and outcomes research. Dr. Porten specializes in bladder cancer and is the Associate Chair for Diversity & Academic Affairs in the Dept. of Urology. Dr. Pasick has conducted cancer disparities research for ~30 years, including multi-ethnic, multi-lingual studies with AA, Latino, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino adults on cancer screening and genetic counseling for hereditary cancers. Previously, as Director of the UCSF HDFCCC’s Office of Community Engagement, she established a network of 70+ AA churches in four Bay Area counties, leading to changes in church policies and practices related to diet and health. Dr. Nynikka Palmer has a National Cancer Institute (NCI) K01 award to address inequities in quality of care among AAs with prostate cancer, and established and runs a support group for AA men with prostate cancer in Oakland. Drs. Pasick and Palmer co-lead the first of its kind county-wide initiative to eliminate the mortality disparity in prostate cancer among AA men via community-based education and screening and a multiple health system quality collaborative (San Francisco Cancer Initiative, SF CAN). Mr. Ghilamichael Andemeskel is a graduate of the SF BUILD program, former Vice President of the Black Student Union and founder of the first Black Unity Center at San Francisco State University, and is currently an outreach coordinator for Dr. Chan’s clinical studies on prostate cancer. Our team has worked (or is currently working) with the following community leaders: Mr. A. Perkins, former Director of the Alameda County Public Health Dept. and prostate cancer advocate; Mr. M. Shaw, Director of the Alameda Health Department's Urban Male Health Initiative; Mr. S. Rosenfeld, Marin County prostate cancer support group leader; and Drs. B. Breyer and S. Blashko, clinical urology leaders of Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Highland Hospital, Oakland, respectively. Additionally, thru Mr. Andemeskel’s efforts, our team has recently begun to engage with multiple community partners, including SF CAN Wellness Warriors, American Cancer Society, San Francisco National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and multiple community organizations focused on addressing systemic issues facing African American communities in Oakland and San Francisco.

FUTURE PLANS - This initial pilot will be supported via philanthropic funds of Drs. Carroll & Chan in the Dept. of Urology. We are committed to launching and sustaining the cohort through 2020 and beyond, by applying for grants from NCI and Dept. of Defense. Build-out of the cohort will be guided by the pilot, though we anticipate expanding the scope of the study through mailings via state cancer registries, collaboration with international health-focused philanthropic organizations such as Movember and Prostate Cancer Foundation (whose leaders have already expressed support for digital advertising), and outreach to community networks.

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to submit. Would it be possible for you to share a 150-word plain language summary of your idea? How would you describe this to your next door neighbor?

Our selection committee has both UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members so a short accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. 

Hi Beth, thank you for this request. We have developed the following "plain language" summary.  Please let me know what you think and if you have any other suggestions/questions.

A common question that people ask after they find out they have cancer is: “What can I do to keep the cancer from coming back?” Our study aims to find answers for the millions of people worldwide who live with cancer. We will use the Internet to collect information on individual characteristics (such as age, race, where people live, who they live with, education, etc), cancer care and other diseases, and about daily life (for example, what people eat, how much they exercise and sleep, if they use any natural products or meditate, etc). If we can enroll a diverse group of people and follow them for several years, we will learn if different lifestyle practices lead to better cancer outcomes. To start, we will enroll people with prostate, bladder, and colorectal cancer. We will share what we learn on our website, for participants and the general public.

Hi Beth - FYI, we have edited the proposal to lead with this plain language summary.

Thanks June.  Eureka is already engaged in this important project, and I agree that engaging community partners would enhance the work.  I understand that this work represents a pilot project that would hopefully lead to additional funding and expanding the scope of the study.  A question - if recruitment goes as you hope through Fall 2020, will you have enough data to answer at least one research question?  If so, what would be the FIRST specific research question you would try to answer?

HI Mark, thank you for the question.

Our initial research questions are focused on feasibility and acceptability of the study platform, and how we can enroll diverse individuals into this digital study. We propose a pilot of ~300 individuals with prostate, bladder, or colorectal cancer, for this first phase, and will focus on recruitment of diverse demographic groups. Thereafter, we plan to attempt to enroll several thousand individuals of each cancer type (starting in 2019-2020 and onwards).

In the short-term (by Fall 2020), I anticipate that we could answer the following important questions on how to improve cancer survivorship: 

  • What lifestyle factors affect overall and cancer-specific quality of life (QOL)?  (This includes questions on how lifestyle may be able to offset side effects of treatment)
    • There are questions we could investigate combining all cancer types, such as: “Are exercise (type, intensity, frequency), meditation, or the usage of other alternative approaches associated with reduced anxiety regarding cancer recurrence?”
    • There are also cancer-type specific QOL questions, e.g, “What specific diet habits, complementary alternative medicine use, or exercise practices are associated with reduced incontinence among individuals with prostate cancer (post-surgery)?”
  • As we aim to enroll a diverse cohort of people with cancer, it would also be of interest to examine which socio-demographic features predict adherence to diet or exercise guidelines for people living with cancer (e.g., American Cancer Society Physical Activity and Nutrition Guidelines for Cancer Survivors). This research may identify opportunities to tailor education, support, and interventions for specific groups of people who may benefit the most from changing diet or exercise practices.

As to which question might we prioritize FIRST, I think it would be of interest to examine what lifestyle practices reduce anxiety regarding cancer recurrence, and if there may be differences by race/ethnicity or culture.

To address questions about diet, exercise, or sleep and the development of cancer recurrence/progression would require more years of follow up, of several thousand people.

Are you looking for community members or UCSF patients or both?  If UCSF patients, are you recruiting through clinic or EHR-based data querying?

Hi Mark -  thank you for the quesiont. We are open to recruiting from both groups you mention; and primarily through EHR based data querying, rather than through live/in-person clinic encounters. Also, we have worked previously with the CTSI on the following types of recruitment methods in other studies - mass mailing to UCSF patients and MyChart messaging to UCSF patients. We'd be interested to pursue both those approaches for this study. We have also received a letter of support from the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (Dr. Scarlett Lin Gomez, Director) to obtain case listings and conduct a mass mailing using data from their registry. 

Were there funds allotted for translations in the budget?

What are your plans to test the translations?

How do you plan to promote the study to the non-English communities?

Do you have staff with the language capacity to assist non-English speaking participants?

Were any of the survey sources/instruments validated for the Spanish-, Chinese-, Tagalog- and Russian-speaking populations?

Thank you for raising many excellent points. In this pilot phase, we do not have funds for translations. Our plans have been to first develop and test the study website, online surveys, recruitment procedures, feasibility and acceptability, using English language materials. Subsequently, we plan to develop a larger grant application that includes translation services and bilingual bicultural collaborators. Based on US Census data, we plan to prioritize translation for the most common languages spoken at home -  English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. With this proposal to eDiverse cohorts, we would be excited to work with collaborators to facilitate quicker adoption of translated materials for the study.

 At this time, we do not have primary staff to assist with non-English speaking subjects, although we have one bilingual member of our research group (Spanish). We understand that one approach for translating survey instruments is to have several multi-lingual individuals translate and back-translate the same surveys (i.e., different individuals translate than those who back-translate), paying attention to both linguistic and cultural appropriateness, then have the two sets of individuals review and reconcile differences together. For certain metrics, construct validity assessment of the translated survey could be done against objective measures (e.g., exercise survey vs. accelerometers or fitness evaluations). We currently do not have resources for conducting such translations or validation studies ourselves, and are interested to learn and collaborate with others on this aspect of the study.

We anticipate that a main way to advertise and recruit participants will be through mass mailing advertisements (paper or email) and social media. When we have multi-lingual study materials ready, we plan to work with different groups on campus to help raise awareness about the study in different languages (e.g., Asian American Research Center on Health, Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, Urologic Oncology clinics at ZSFGH, SF CAN, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Office of Community Engagement, etc).

Based on the literature, several of the proposed surveys have been validated in multiple languages:

Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index – Spanish, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese, etc

PROMIS QOL metrics – Spanish, Chinese

Food Frequency Questionnaire – Spanish

We acknowledge that for some of the surveys, like the diet assessment, both linguistic and cultural appropriateness will be particularly important, and we have considered using additional methods of assessment that would allow more flexibility in responses (e.g., 24-hour diet recalls using the National Cancer Institute ASA24, Automated Self-Administered 24 Diet Dietary Assessment Tool, is available in English, Spanish, and French).

a few questions:

1) how do you see the community advisors helping you with your project? do you have specific ways they can be most helpful? 

2) how do you propose to document pre-diagnosis lifestyle habits in your participants? what will the baseline data on your participants come from?

3) given the diversity of patients you are recruiting, what is your process for identifying important culturally specific lifestyle habits across socio economic status that can influence quality of life? Also, how is spirituality being addressed as part of lifestyle? it is so important to many in our communities.

4) Re: digital divide critique - have you considered or will you be offering patients with a phone?

5) how are/would patients benefitting from with the study? how are you integrating supports/information/resoures within the study? 

6) Re: cancer -- community residents perceive that there are few linguistically accessible supports to the Latin@ community - community residents would like to have more culturally and linguistically appropriate - how do you intend to communicate out the results of such a study and do it in the most user-friendly manner for residents of all communities? 

7) will this study examine African immmigrant communities?  generational differences? 

Thank you for more great questions, and providing us an opportunity to share more about our plans, approaches, and vision for this study. We have tried to address each question individually below. Thanks!

1)    how do you see the community advisors helping you with your project? do you have specific ways they can be most helpful? 

Response: We plan to engage and integrate community advisors into multiple aspects of the study design, planning, implementation, and follow-up. We will be seeking guidance on what data we should collect for different populations, pilot testing our materials and online study experience, developing culturally competent methods for community engagement, and assisting with developing networks for advertising the study for enrollment. We will work with the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Community Advisory Board (HDFCCC CAB), and Dr. Kim Rhoads, the new Director of the Office of Community Engagement for the HDFCCC.

We will have a pilot phase, including focus groups, interviews, and requests for feedback on study materials and the website/mobile user interface. Community advisors could help us identify early participants who would be more likely to engage and provide constructive feedback.

For the pilot phase and beyond, we anticipate that for some groups, establishing trust through multiple contacts, education, and relationship-building may be needed before one even discusses research participation. We anticipate seeking guidance from community advisors regarding best ways to engage potential participants, frame and promote the study, and solicit feedback on what information different communities would like to view on the website as general “patient education”. Furthermore, community advisors can provide guidance to establish a culturally competent platform and model that aims to minimize any historical or social barriers that might otherwise be overlooked. We recently hired an outreach coordinator specifically to network and build relationships in African American communities of Oakland and San Francisco, to help build partnerships that support ongoing dialogue, general public education about diet/lifestyle/clinical research, and recruitment for our current clinical trials and this proposed study.

 

2)    how do you propose to document pre-diagnosis lifestyle habits in your participants? what will the baseline data on your participants come from?

Response: Baseline data will be obtained through online, validated, surveys. In the future, we may be interested to add a biospecimen collection portion to the study to also examine things like nutrient or oxidative stress or inflammation levels, however that will require a larger grant to support building the infrastructure for multi-site collection/processing. Using online surveys, we will also ask about changes made in diet, exercise, and other lifestyle factors, pre- vs. post-diagnosis, although such questions may be subject to recall bias.

3)    given the diversity of patients you are recruiting, what is your process for identifying important culturally specific lifestyle habits across socio economic status that can influence quality of life? Also, how is spirituality being addressed as part of lifestyle? it is so important to many in our communities.

Response:

As described above, we will work closely with our community advisors on what data we should collect for different populations, and pilot testing our materials and online study experience. This will include requesting guidance on culturally specific lifestyle habits.

In general, we will collect information on residential neighborhood, income (self-reported in categories), education, occupation, and household size to help us examine if there are differences in the effects of lifestyle factors by socio-economic status. After we launch the initial phase of this study, we will have a robust platform for requesting information on other critical aspects of lifestyle (i.e., other than diet, exercise, sleep, CAM, etc), including spirituality, that may influence quality of life and overall health. For example, we have identified the Spiritual Well Being survey, EORTC QLQ‐SWB32 (Vivat B, European J of Ca Care, 2017) as a future module for buildout on the Eureka platform; and we have been approached about adding a survey regarding racism or adverse life course events, depending on the diversity of the population which we are able to recruit.

 

4)    Re: digital divide critique - have you considered or will you be offering patients with a phone?

 

Response: For our initial pilot, we do not have sufficient funds to offer participants a phone, though the study will be available/accessible both by phone, tablet, or computer.  As part of the pilot, we plan to ask individuals about reasons for declining both on our study website and through a mass mailing to a subset of potential participants. While we realize that those who decline may not respond, we will attempt to gather such data for future planning and grant applications.

5)    how are/would patients benefitting from with the study? how are you integrating supports/information/resources within the study? 

Response: As scientists and public health advocates, we are committed to pursuing novel research to extend our knowledge about prevention, while also developing and disseminating tools/resources to the general public. As we have done in the past, we anticipate working with patient advocates to develop new content for community talks and patient guides. Our team has extensive experience making patient-friendly tools (e.g., recommendations, shopping guides, recipe books, magnets, postcards, exercise workbooks, exercise plans, blogs, interviews with experts, recipe of the week, etc) about diet and exercise, as we have done this for several of our intervention trials, at the request of national foundations (e.g., Prostate Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society), and for distribution on our departmental websites. We have collaborated successfully with Beth Berrean’s group to design these print and web-based materials in the past. Specifically for this study, we plan to distribute similar patient-friendly materials about prevention and wellness on the study website. We anticipate making additional materials targeted at specific groups based on cancer type, as well as preventive health measures appropriate for the general public (i.e., not just cancer survivors).

As an example, we have created several patient-facing, user-friendly lifestyle guides for men living with prostate cancer, which are freely available on our Dept. of Urology website as downloadable PDF’s (https://urology.ucsf.edu/lifestyle-studies ); we also have mass produced print copies of these booklets for distribution in clinic and at patient support groups, etc. They have been very well received and we are consistently asked to share more by providers from our urology clinic and integrative medicine, and our local patient support groups. We have also made graphic magnets to remind men about healthy eating habits for prostate cancer prevention, and are currently working on a general healthy eating/shopping postcard appropriate for a broad audience (i.e., aligning with American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, American Cancer Association, and our own research recommendations). We plan to have our outreach coordinator (Mr. Ghilamichael Andemeskel) distribute these postcards with our other study advertising materials at community events.

6)    Re: cancer -- community residents perceive that there are few linguistically accessible supports to the Latin@ community - community residents would like to have more culturally and linguistically appropriate - how do you intend to communicate out the results of such a study and do it in the most user-friendly manner for residents of all communities? 

Response: We will harness existing partnerships in diverse communities, to present study results and provide presentations on cancer prevention (and survivorship) and diet/lifestyle recommendations at community events. We look forward to engaging with existing and new community advisors, our outreach coordinator (Mr. Andemeskel), and Drs. Rena Pasick and Nynikka Palmer to develop patient education materials that are culturally and linguistically appropriate.

Drs. Pasick and Palmer specialize in community engaged-research with diverse populations and are part of this collaboration. We will work with them, Dr. Kim Rhoads, and others to obtain feedback on the study from diverse groups (including the Latino community), and disseminate useful information to various community groups, through a mix of live presentations, our website, and as print materials. As summarized above, we plan to create tools that live on the study website, so participants can learn about latest study results or recommendations via email, text messages, or logging in to their study account. We also plan to make hard copy materials summarizing general recommendations, and distribute these at community events with our other study advertisements. Our outreach coordinator attends local events to distribute materials, both in conjunction with other UCSF cooperatives (e.g., SF CAN) or independently. For example, this past summer, he has distributed our study materials at the Oakland Art and Soul, Juneteenth, and First Friday Festivals (events in both Oakland and San Francisco), and at local congregations like Bethel AME and Third Baptist Church in San Francisco. We have also worked to establish partnerships with local health group such as the Oakland based African American prostate cancer support group led by Dr. Nynikka Palmer. He has developed and is continuing to develop partnerships with local faith groups, community organizers, and health coalitions. These efforts provide representatives of the community with access to study information materials and more importantly promote direct engagement, such that they are more empowered to be active decision makers about their lifestyle and health, and the education of their communities.

Our team also regularly provides talks for the general public on diet/lifestyle recommendations (e.g., Drs. Kenfield and Chan recently presented on diet and exercise for cancer prevention at the American Cancer Society Bay Area Policy Forum, sponsored by the Oakland A’s). Additionally, members of our team, including Drs. Palmer and Pasick, and our outreach coordinator (Mr. Ghilamichael Andesmeskel), have experience developing culturally appropriate presentations about clinical research and medicine and presenting at local community churches, health organizations, etc.

Dr. Chan has also been invited to create podcasts on diet and exercise for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, which will be posted/hosted on Facebook; and which could be adapted for posting on our internal dept. and study websites.

We currently are mentoring a diverse group of students (African American, Hispanic/Latino, LGBQTI) who are also interested in engaging different populations in clinical research and integrative medicine, and have expressed an interest in helping with outreach for this study. 

We welcome the opportunity to interface with other colleagues about recommendations on this important point.

 

7)    will this study examine African immigrant communities?  generational differences? 

 

Response: This is a great question and we can add a set of questions to inquire about immigration/ family history of immigration to allow us to study this in the future. 

This is a great project. I have the following questions.

1) Given the amount of community involvement you already have, do you think you need the diversity aspect of Diverse eCohorts (i.e., help with recruitment, retention, appropriate tools for minority populations) or is this primarily to build the tech infrastructure?

2) What are the projected number of minority patients you are planning to recruit? Assuming we can help with Spanish and Chinese, what # of patients from each of those groups?

Hi Tung, Thank you for the clarifying question. We are interested in both the diversity and technology development components of Diverse eCohorts. This project is being launched using internal discretionary funding from the Dept. of Urology, and is not currently supported by a formal grant mechanism.  Thus, any additional support and resources to engage community networks is welcome. While our team has experience conducting community-engaged research, our current part-time outreach coordinator is focused primarily on networking with local African American populations. Fostering parallel networks to provide guidance on outreach to Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, and other diverse communities would be very welcome.  

With regards to your 2nd question - we propose to enroll approximately 35 African American, 25 Hispanic, and 15 Asian participants. Based on US Census Data, among those who were diagnosed with cancer in 2015, the distribution by race/ethnicity was ~78% White, 10% Black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian, which would correspond to 236, 31, 22, and 9 White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals, respectively, in a population of 300. Thus, we anticipate enrolling a similar/slightly higher proportion of non-white participants (75/300 ~ 25%) than the national distribution.

Thank you for this proposal, and for the important research questions you're working to answer.  Does your team have thoughts about how you would adress incorporating culturally-informed diet and lifestyle practices that are not yet grounded in evidence?  For example: if Latin@ participants are being told that use of a particular plant or vegetable in the diet, like consumption of cactus or aloe vera are beneficial, how does something like that get dealt with in customizing diet information provided for these populations?  Do you review the evidence on these foods, or do you stick to the evidence you're relying on prior to gathering such community perspectives, and merely tailoring the message you've developed in advance? I have the same question for other behaviors, beyond diet.

Hi Mr. Vargas, thank you for your follow-up question. In the past, with regards to our work in prostate cancer, we have done a mix of all that you mention above – we provide summaries based on latest evidence (including studies we have published as well as others), we collect data on new participants to extend the scope of our research, and we have also addressed questions/topics received from our patient advocate/nutrition group. For example, last year when we updated our Diet booklet (https://urology.ucsf.edu/sites/urology.ucsf.edu/files/uploaded-files/attachments/diet_guide_web.pdf the navy blue one, on this page), we collaborated with 3 prostate cancer patient advocates and two registered dieticians with the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. As a group, we decided which topics to cover/prioritize, either as separate designated sections or under the Frequently Asked Questions area. The patient advocates and the nutritionists played a critical role in identifying topics or questions that may be of interest to our target audience. Currently, our working group is not very diverse (culturally), and it be would great to involve additional community representatives/patient advocates who could help us understand what topics may be of particular interest for different cultural groups/populations. In addition to having the more formal PDF guides available on the website, the study website could have additional sections that addressed a wider scope of topics in a monthly newsletter format or blog. One idea we have discussed internally is having a study nutritionist field questions periodically and keep a running FAQ section, where questions and answers could be filed/tagged/organized to support searching (e.g., to help the item be found if someone google searched it). We look forward to discussing the technical feasibility of this kind resource with the Eureka team. I hope this addresses your questions and thanks again for your interest!

HI again - to clarify, when I wrote "our working group is not very diverse" - I was referring to our patient advocate  committee for prostate cancer that has been intersted in nutrition. We are committed to creating a cohort that will address questions about lifestyle and cancer for diverse populations, and look forward to engaging with more community representatives to ensure the success of this endeavor. thanks!

I appreciate the vastness of the scope, I’m wondering about this as appropriate N for the work that this collaboration is doing. I am also concerned about the tone of “teachable moment”- that approach psychologically does not work in Black/AA communities nor Latinx/ Pacific Islander communities. It also comes across as judgemental and possibly structurally inequitable given health and food access and safety concerns of community dealing with real primary issues that can impact their access, practice and multiple other systemic structural Race issues. How’s night you see shifting to be able to engage without a top down ivory tower university “I know” approach? Also given other factors such as enVirgo mental toxicity etc? 

Dear Dr. LeSarre, Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

Our goal is to initiate a diverse cohort focused on addressing questions about lifestyle factors and cancer survivorship, and which includes under-represented populations. Thank you for pointing out ways to improve our proposal to engage better with diverse communities. I see now how the term “teachable moment” is inappropriate in this context and very much welcome feedback from experts like yourself, who can help me avoid future mis-steps. I have now removed that term, added a basic summary at the beginning of the proposal, and will continue to make edits incorporating feedback before the deadline on Friday. I welcome your thoughts on whether the revised first two paragraphs are better.

Our initial proposed sample size of 300 is the initial pilot phase of the study. The goals of the pilot are to test feasibility and acceptability of the study design, format, and methods in diverse groups. We anticipate revising the study based on the pilot results, and aim to enroll thousands of individuals with different cancer types and of diverse race/ethnicities in the future. The exact numbers for each subgroup will be guided by the recruitment/enrollment experience in the pilot. We have revised the 2nd paragraph to describe this better.

We are interested to partner with community leaders, patient advocates, caregivers, and other stakeholders to create a study that not only collects data for our initial research ideas on diet/exercise/CAM/sleep, but to learn what questions are of most interest to the diverse populations we aim to serve. For example, we may add questions about adverse life course events (including racism and violence) such that one can better study effects on cancer/health. We welcome the opportunity to work with community partners to ensure that our study materials are culturally sensitive, linguistically appropriate, and accessible.

Lastly, thank you for appreciating the “vastness of the scope”! As an epidemiologist, I have benefitted from working with large cohort studies of hundreds of thousands of people that have spanned decades and were started by scientists and participants who came before me. In part, I view the initiation and development of this new study as one way for me to ‘pay it forward’ – to improve public health and medicine for all different types of people, increase knowledge about under-represented populations, and to engage diverse learners in medical and public health professions.

This proposal is an incredible endeavor and could transform how we care for and empower our patients.  

Thank you Dr. Chan, very helpful and thoughtful responses. Given some of your above comments and my repsonses and the goal to: 

In the US, African Americans (AA) have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group for most cancer types. Approximately 190,000 AAs are diagnosed with cancer annually. There are extremely limited data on the impact of lifestyle factors on psychosocial and clinical outcomes in AAs with cancer. Thus, focused study on post-diagnostic lifestyle factors, and its influences on cancer outcomes, in particular among AA’s, is warranted.

How might you see shifting design in addition to dialogue around race that you mentioned (and certainly there are longitidunal studies on impact of stress/depression/anxiety and linking them to ongoing experiences of racism), that can address the compounding factor of stress and isolation that can often impact what i was speaking to about "knowledge" not being the deterring/motivating factor in lifestyle changes?

Thank you Dr. Chan, very helpful and thoughtful responses. Given some of your above comments and my repsonses and the goal to: 

In the US, African Americans (AA) have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group for most cancer types. Approximately 190,000 AAs are diagnosed with cancer annually. There are extremely limited data on the impact of lifestyle factors on psychosocial and clinical outcomes in AAs with cancer. Thus, focused study on post-diagnostic lifestyle factors, and its influences on cancer outcomes, in particular among AA’s, is warranted.

How might you see shifting design in addition to dialogue around race that you mentioned (and certainly there are longitidunal studies on impact of stress/depression/anxiety and linking them to ongoing experiences of racism), that can address the compounding factor of stress and isolation that can often impact what i was speaking to about "knowledge" not being the deterring/motivating factor in lifestyle changes?

Hi Dr. LeSarre, Thank you for the question. We agree that there could be multiple factors affecting behavior change, in addition to “knowledge” and would be interested in collecting such information for the study, and subsequently identifying ways to address such barriers. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with community partners and other colleagues who have experience in these areas.  We agree that it would be good to capture data on both individual, structural, and environmental factors that may influence lifestyle habits. For example, we could add measures that capture lived experiences such as micro/macro aggression, stress, or living situations, and ask how these impact lifestyle choices; or, apply geospatial tools to map out the communities with regards to how conducive they are to support exercise and healthy nutrition. Adding such metrics could help identify better what factors act as barriers, and thereby help us provide more evidence regarding how to support healthy lifestyle changes. We have now added this to the proposal. 

Additionally given Black/AA (with a prostate bladder or colo-recatl cancer diagnosis) will typically be of a probably 55+ age range the design will need to be super accessible as this age range is typically not as comfortable with tech and virtual communities and learning. How do you anticipate dealing with this challenge?

We acknowledge that the format of the study may not be as accessible for older adults, which is another reason we aim to test the feasibility of the “format” (Aim 1) and develop methods for enrollment (Aim 2). We have revised the wording of Aim 2 to mention “older adults” as well as “under-represented” groups, and added mention about providing in-person assistance for technology support.

We have long experience conducting “mixed mode” studies and offering both online and paper forms for consenting/surveys. Unfortunately, we currently do not have funds to offer this in the pilot, and thus the pilot is focused on testing feasibility of the digital format, while also collecting data on what percent of individuals would prefer paper/postal mail modes. Such data would help us apply for funding to allow the study to offer both digital and paper data collection methods.

With regards to Aim 2 of the pilot, we have considered several possible ways to create “bridges” or have “facilitators” to help someone enroll in the pilot study digitally, if they are not comfortable with technology. We have several ideas which we look forward to discussing with community leaders/stakeholders, to identify what is more likely to work. For example, we have considered having a team of outreach facilitators (e.g., a combination of volunteers, students, peer navigators/coaches, study coordinators) who could provide more “boots on the ground” support to help show people how to enter the study website and enroll initially. These individuals could provide ongoing periodic assistance in technology support and answer study questions at specified times/places (e.g., having a volunteer who regularly visits the same church, support group, barbershop, café, or community center to help people in-person with a tablet or laptop on hand). We have also considered engaging interested participants to help bring in other people to the study, serving as “peer coaches”. Local peer coaches could also help by identifying places with free Internet or having a “hotspot” with them to create a location with free Internet, temporarily, to facilitate enrollment and survey completion. Some of these ideas require additional funding, and we will be working these  into Fall grant applications and welcome f/b from community partners.

 

Commenting is closed.

The Saving Our Ladies from Early Births and Reducing Stress (SOLARS) Cohort Study: Leveraging the Eureka Platform

Proposal Status: 

 

Summary:  Preterm birth is leading cause of death and disability in infants and children. Black and Latina women are at increased risk for preterm delivery compared to White women. While psychological stress has been shown to be associated with preterm birth, the mechanisms through which psychological stress causes preterm birth are unclear. The Saving Our Ladies from Early Births and Reducing Stress (SOLARS) study focuses on expanding our understanding of the relationship between psychological stress and preterm birth in 1,000 Black and Latina women in San Francisco, Oakland, and Fresno. The study has two primary research questions that examine the impact of individual, molecular, and social factors on psychological stress and preterm birth. The first question focuses on understanding patterns in all women in the study and the second focuses specifically on understanding why some women with high levels of psychological stress deliver preterm and some do not.

Introduction: More than one in ten Black and Latina pregnant women will have an infant born prematurely – that is, before 37 completed weeks of gestation. Infants born prematurely are at substantially increased risk for death within the first year of life and are more likely to have short- and long-term developmental and health challenges including, for example, intellectual delay, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and asthma.

Rates of preterm birth in Black and Latina women have consistently been found to be 20 to 100% higher than in White women. Some data suggests that higher rates of preterm birth in women of color may be due to higher levels of stress – including higher levels of acute stress, accumulated lifetime exposure to stress, racism associated stress, and post-traumatic stress. Support for this explanation is driven by consistent findings showing an association between preterm birth and these different types of stress as measured by surveys, questionnaires and interviews.

Although studies have demonstrated specific links between multiple types of stress and preterm birth in women of color, what underlies this relationship remains unclear from a mechanistic point of view. For example, although cortisol is a key measure of biological stress, studies that have looked at the relationship between cortisol and preterm birth in women with both high and low levels of psychological stress have not observed a consistent link with preterm birth. The Saving Our Ladies from Early Births and Reducing Stress (SOLARS) study, funded by the UCSF California Preterm Birth initiative, is a prospective cohort study focused on expanding our understanding of the relationship between psychological stress, molecular signaling, and preterm birth in Black and Latina women in San Francisco, Oakland and Fresno.

Research questions: The SOLARS study focuses on two primary research aims including: 1) Evaluating whether individual, molecular, and social factors moderate or mediate the relationship between psychological stress and preterm birth in Black and Latina women (Aim 1); And, 2) Exploring the interrelationships of demographic, psychosocial, obstetric, and molecular risk and protective factors with preterm birth in Black and Latina women with high levels of psychological stress (Aim 2). Within Aim 1 we test three hypotheses: 1a, tests the hypotheses that social and individual risk and protective factors moderate the relationship between psychological stress and PTB;  Aim 1b, tests the hypothesis that individually-measured psychological resilience moderates the relationship between psychological stress and preterm birth; Aim 1c tests the hypothesis that molecular factors mediate the relationship between psychological stress and preterm birth. Whereas Aim 1 focuses on hypothesis testing, Aim 2 leverages advanced statistical techniques (i.e. machine learning) to determine whether or not there are factors within or across pregnancy that are associated with or predict  preterm birth in women with high levels of psychological stress. We believe that addressing these aims will lead to novel and actionable information that could eventually be translated into interventions for increasing gestational age and decreasing preterm birth in Black and Latina women in the geographies of focus and more broadly. In addition, we believe these efforts will contribute key data and biological resources for expanded and ongoing studies aimed at improving birth and developmental outcomes for women and children of color.

Addressing the SOLARS research aims requires intense work with participants and study partners throughout pregnancy and afterwards and includes the collection of survey data throughout pregnancy through the first year of life as well as biospecimens and hospital record data. Integration of the SOLARS study into the Eureka platform offers the opportunity to maximize engagement with women and study partners and we believe, could facilitate a more rapid cycling between discovery to interventions. In addition, use of the platform would offer the opportunity for developing nested studies that focus on other technologies including, for example, wearable activity and sleep tracking devices and contraction monitoring devices. In addition, leverage of the platform would eventually allow us to include more study sites across the United States and even worldwide as the effort progresses.

Study Sample: The SOLARS study will enroll 1,000 (500 Black and 500 Latina) women and their infants in San Francisco, Oakland and Fresno. The study pilot which aimed to assess methods for recruitment and retention and the acceptability of methods and measures among participants was conducted in March 2018-August 2018. We expect the full study to launch in the Fall of 2018 with enrollment extending over a three-year period (through 2021) and the full study extending through June 2023. Women are enrolled before 21 completed weeks of gestation at both UCSF and non-UCSF sites in all three geographies. All women included are self-identified as Black or Latina, are 18 years or older, are English and/or Spanish speaking, live or work full-time in one of the three geographies, and are expected to express a willingness to participate in all survey, biospecimen, and medical record review components of the study at all study time points in the prenatal period until the infant is one year of age. Women are not eligible for the study if they have active bipolar disorder or psychosis, if they are pregnant with a multiple gestation, if they are serving as birth surrogates, or if their pregnancy resulted from assisted reproductive technology.

Measurements: Participants complete online surveys and contribute biospecimens at up to 4 time points during pregnancy (11-14, 15-20, 24-26, 30-32). After birth, women complete surveys at 5-6 weeks, 6-months, and 12-months postpartum. Postpartum biospecimen collection is done at 5-6 weeks and 6-months. Hospital record review is done for all women from 1-year prior to pregnancy through 1-year after birth and for infants from birth through 12-months postpartum. Survey items focus on multiple components of psychological stress (e.g. childhood events, chronic strain, racism/discrimination), neighborhood and sociocultural factors (e.g. available healthcare, crime, poverty), individual factors (e.g. age, clinical factors, substance use/abuse), resiliency (e.g. mastery, self-efficacy, positive affect), and the current health status of the woman and infant (e.g. recent maternal and/or infant diagnoses). Required maternal biospecimen collection across time points include blood, urine and saliva. Molecular measures in biospecimens across time points include measures of the direct molecular stress response (cortisol and corticotropin-releasing hormone), measures of the immune response (cytokines, chemokines) and measures of placental health and growth (e.g. pregnancy-associated-protein-plasma protein A, nerve growth factor). We will also measure telomere length and target genetic markers (SNPs) with known associations to stress and/or preterm birth as well as lipids, proteins, metabolites and epigenetic signals in order to explore whether these pathways yield any useful information related to the link between stress and preterm birth. It is our belief that the Eureka platform would help facilitate all the survey measurement and hospital record review components of the study as well as online enrollment across sites and data visualization. We also believe that the Eureka platform might provide real-time specimen tracking capability across sites and might eventually provide a seamless way to share data with participants and partners.

Team: It is important to note that SOLARS study was designed from a reproductive justice perspective.This study was conceptualized, designed, and executed in a deeply engaged way with women of color serving in key leadership positions throughout the project. Project coordinators, graduate student researchers, and research assistants have been intentionally chosen to maximize the success of recruiting medically underserved women of color. We believe the integrity of the science and the quality of the data and their analyses are impacted by who, how, and why data are being collected.

The SOLARS team includes investigators across several schools and departments at UCSF and also includes investigators at UC Berkeley, UCSD, Stanford University, the University of Iowa, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and Fresno State University. The Primary Investigator on the study is Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD – Director of Discovery and Precision Health within the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative. Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski has worked in the field of preterm birth for nearly two decades and is also the Mother of a daughter born preterm. Brittany Chambers, PhD, is one of two Co-Primary Investigators on the study and is an Assistant Professor in Epidemiology & Biostatistics at UCSF. Dr. Chambers’ research focuses on understanding the links between racism and preterm birth. Anu Gomez, PhD, is the other Co-Primary Investigator on the study and is an Assistant Professor in Sociology in the UC Berkeley School of Sociology. Dr. Gomez’ research focuses on understanding women’s contraception choices and on better understanding the reproductive experiences of Latina women.

Co-Investigators across UCSF include Dr. Larry Rand who is also the Primary Investigator of the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative, Drs. Monica McLemore, Elena Flowers, Kord Korber and Anatol Sucher in the School Nursing, Drs. Elizabeth Rogers and Matt Pantell in the Department of Pediatrics, Drs. Nancy Adler, Elissa Epel, and Jen Felder in the Department of Psychiatry, Dr. Nisha Parikh in the Department of Cardiology, and Dr. Charles McCulloch in the Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics. This UCSF team works with closely with co-investigators at other institutions (Mike Snyder, PhD, at Stanford University, Christina Chambers, PhD at UCSD, Kelli Ryckman, PhD at the University of Iowa, Lou Muglia, MD, PhD, at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and Tania Pacheco, PhD at Fresno  State University). This transdisciplinary team also partners closely with women with lived experience and with community based organizations and clinics in San Francisco, Oakland and Fresno. The SOLARS team has a long-standing and ongoing relationship with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the California Preterm Birth Initiative. This CAB is composed mostly of Black and Latina women from San Francisco, Oakland and Fresno. All of the women on the CAB have either had a child with preterm birth or work closely with women at increased risk for preterm birth. These women have provided key input and suggestions at all phases of the SOLARS study and it is anticipated that they will remain involved as the study progresses. The study team also works closely with several organizations that serve low income women in one or more of the geographies of focus (e.g. Black Infant Health, La Clinica De La Raza). These partners assist with recruitment of women through their programs and provide feedback on study materials and methods.

Funding and Sustainability: The SOLARS study is funded by the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative. The UCSF Preterm Birth Initiative was funded by at $100 million gift from Marc and Lynn Benioff and Bill and Melinda Gates in 2015 and includes both a California arm and an East Africa arm. The California arm of the initiative will provide funding to the SOLARS project through fiscal year 2022-2023. Investigators are also seeking funding through the NIH and other entities to augment initiative costs and expand on the established research goals and infrastructure. It is also notable that the Eureka platform might eventually allow us to include women in Africa and other global locations in the study.

.

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to submit. Your idea seems straightforward but could you share a 150-word plain language summary of how your aims connect?

Our selection committee has both UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members so a short accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. 

Nice proposal and exciting project, Laura.  I agree that this project is a good fit for Eureka - as you know, we are working closely with you and your team to plan a Eureka portal for your project already.  I am sure that additional community engagement from our Diverse eCohorts project would enhance your work.

It looks like your focus is on Black and Latina women.  Would you be open to including Chinese women as well?  Would you be able to support Chinese language materials (assuming Eureka could support this)?

Hi Mark -- thanks for your input.

The SOLARS study focuses specifically on women at increased risk for preterm birth and was co-developed with Black and Latina women (our highest risk groups).

This is well thought out and in-depth proposal with much support. Congratulations as it is an important line of inquiry. A few thoughts/questions:

1) how do you see your project benefitting from community advisory given your established team of both researchers and community members? Happy to see the community advisor team and its work. Is this also a community participatory research project? 

2) can you shed light on how the women in the study would, and under what conditions, receive resoures/supports/interventions while the study is underway?  we would love to understand how you work out the ethical considerations for the project.

3) Curious as to how you see the Latina paradox working here - will you be examining generational differences in the Latin@ population?

4) what resources and/or compensation do/will study participants receive? it is a very intense-study....

5) Re: African American communities as you know, we have an increasingly number of Eritreans, Ethiopians, etc.. would be interesting to do a comparative study on pre-term given the cultural differences in the black community - including black Latin@s

Thank you for your comment and questions Dr. Gallegos-Castillo.


Re: 1) how do you see your project benefitting from community advisory given your established team of both researchers and community members? Happy to see the community advisor team and its work. Is this also a community participatory research project?


The SOLARS project has engaged community at multiple phases thus far. For example, women with lived experience participated in planning and prioritizing the question of focus, gave input on surveys and biospecimens to be collected, and women with lived experience reviewed and made suggestions with respect to study materials. Going forward we will be sharing results with women at all phases of the project in order to get their input on how results should be shared and disseminated but also to gain insight with respect to potential in-roads for risk communication and intervention. The project includes many key aspects of CBPR and includes not only women with lived experience but the community organizations and clinics that serve and support them. The study also includes leadership by women of color and by women who themselves were at risk for or delivered preterm.


Re: 2) can you shed light on how the women in the study would, and under what conditions, receive resources/supports/interventions while the study is underway? We would love to understand how you work out the ethical considerations for the project.

All women receive information packets at each visit with contact numbers and resource contacts related to mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence services in Oakland/ Alameda County. Post-natal visit packet include additional materials and contacts for the Early Start Program for babies in Oakland/ Alameda County. Research assistants review the packets with women in detail at each visit.

Re: 3) Curious as to how you see the Latina paradox working here - will you be examining generational differences in the Latina population?

We capture if women were born in the United States or elsewhere for Black and Latina women. We believe this may be an important contributor to the patterns we observe both in terms of levels of reported psychological stress but potentially also as a mediator/moderator in measurement of stress and gestational age/ preterm birth associations.

Re: 4) What resources and/or compensation do/will study participants receive? it is a very intense-study

Women receive remuneration for their time in the form of gift cards for each visit. Remuneration is $30 per each prenatal visit and $40 per each postnatal visit plus an additional $10/visit if additional biospecimens beyond those required are collected.

Re: 5) Re: African American communities as you know, we have an increasingly number of Eritreans, Ethiopians, etc.. would be interesting to do a comparative study on pre-term given the cultural differences in the black community - including black Latinas.

Agreed. We are capturing not only US versus foreign born but also country of birth.

correction Re: #2 -- women in San Francisco and Fresno will receive packets specific to their county (the pilot was for Oakland only).

Hello. Thank you for those thoughtful responses. It seems like you have thought through your approach engaging community stakeholders. I just wanted to clarify that there are community advisors on the steering committee that will be weighing in on projects and working to support them. In what way do you think community advisory members on this steering committee could be helpful to your project? 

Thank you. I believe we would benefit tremendously from having input from the community advisors on the steering committee with respect to planned, ongoing, and potential in-roads with respect to recruitment, outreach and dissemination of results. We also hope to launch a more robust advertising effort aimed at increasing awareness around the work which needs input on tone, appearance and places where such outreach are deemed appropriate and to make sure that the materials are culturally appropriate and relevant to the women we are recruiting. Most important to us is that women see themselves in the work and feel represented and reflected from recruitment to results presentation.

Thank you for the proposal, and for focusing efforts and resources on answering these important research questions.  In referene to Dr Gallegos-Castillo's question around resources/ supports provided to patients, is there the potential for the community input offered via this partnership enhancing the resources/ supports offered to patients at all?  I understand you aren't necessarily testing interventions with this study, and still wondering if there is the potential for community input and partnerships to augment what women are offered, when participants are identified as having extreme levels of stress.

Thank you. We would welcome input and suggestions from community advisors on how best to address the needs of women who are highly stressed. We have materials with resources for women that are shared with all participants that could certainly be expanded.

This sounds like a great project. A couple of logistical questions.

1) The Diverse eCohorts support is for 1 year for development and recruitment assistance. Do you have funds to continue for the remaining 2 years? And if the Diverse eCohorts community partners can help with recruitment, is there the possibility of their continuing participation, if they wish, in your project?

2) What are the incentives for participants to join and stay in this intensive study?

 

Thank you for your comments.

Re: 1) The Diverse eCohorts support is for 1 year for development and recruitment assistance. Do you have funds to continue for the remaining 2 years? And if the Diverse eCohorts community partners can help with recruitment, is there the possibility of their continuing participation, if they wish, in your project?

Yes, the project is supported by the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative so will continue for at least 3-years and possibly longer. With respect to continued participation of community members after the first year -- there will absolutely be ongoing opportunities for participating in the project particularly around providing feedback on results and suggesting actionable in-roads for intervention.

2) What are the incentives for participants to join and stay in this intensive study?

Participants receive remuneration for their participation at each phase via gift cards. They also receive small gift bags with snack and beauty items as a thank you for their time.

 

Thank you for the detailed outline and the answers to the questions already posed. I have to say that the opening title "The Saving Our Ladies..." struck a particularly paternalistic/maternalistic note with me and I had to work hard to not write another dissertation on why the "saving" of Black and Brown strikes me this way. I will save it for an in person conversation, except to say that PTBi hosted a summit/conference on racism and pre-term birth where structural racism was discussed, it is disapointing to me that this is where the approach still seems structurally inequitable from the title. Knowing the work, I know that there is more than meets the title but the "whitestream" world of academia in to save the day is not what I think the researchers would want. 

Thank you so much for this input Monique. This is a study title that was generated by and for Black women. I know in that context the "saving our" part of this is different (rather than from the outside in) but I certianly know and see your point. This is something we discussed at some length early on with our CAB and they also really liked the name and it was kept. Still, we are moving from pilot to full study so it may be worth revisiting the discussion again. Thank you so much.

Given what you have written about the CAB I would think that a way to outline the work from the outset as community driven and community responsive could serve to support a different title that engages Black and Brown agency in this process and study. Thanks for listening.

he SOLARS team has a long-standing and ongoing relationship with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the California Preterm Birth Initiative. This CAB is composed mostly of Black and Latina women from San Francisco, Oakland and Fresno. All of the women on the CAB have either had a child with preterm birth or work closely with women at increased risk for preterm birth. These women have provided key input and suggestions at all phases of the SOLARS study and it is anticipated that they will remain involved as the study progresses.

 

Additionally given the feedback of the CAB - how much of what they say is integrated back into the work? And how are you all ensuring that accountability? 

Thank you again for your input. The CAB as well as Black and Brown women who have participated in previous work with the research team have provided input throughout the arc of the study and continue to do so. We meet with the CAB at roughly 6-month intervals and share progress on the study. 

In addition to my other comments, I do want to state that I strongly see the need for the work and want to see this work suceed, and to suceed I believe that the answers lie in social, environmental and structural raism and inequities and that they must be addressed in order to see these devastating numbers change.

Thank you again Monique. I agree with you completely. I have added some language into the team section now that clearly expresses our commitment to this work from a framing of reproductive justice.

Commenting is closed.

Improving access to chronic urticaria care by creating an online engagement platform accessible to diverse patient populations

Primary Author: Iris Otani
Proposal Status: 

Objective:

To evaluate whether an online engagement platform for chronic hives / urticaria (CU) accessible to diverse patient populations and focused on symptom tracking, assessment of psychiatric comorbidities, and clinician feedback improves immediate and long-term CU symptom control.

Background and Problem

Urticaria or hives is a common affliction that affects 25% of the general population. A subset of patients with urticaria develop chronic urticaria (CU), which has an estimated prevalence of 0.5-5% and incidence of 1.4% per year in the general population and is characterized by recurrent pruritic hives and/or painful angioedema for six weeks or more. The biology of CU is not well-understood, although a subset of patients may have an autoimmune basis to their CU.  

CU has a significant detrimental impact on quality of life as CU disrupts patients’ activities of daily living, work, and sleep. Indeed, one-third to one-half of CU patients experience depression and anxiety, and the health status of CU patients is comparable to coronary artery disease patients awaiting bypass surgery. Many patients do not receive adequate psychosocial care.

Achieving symptom control during the first year after CU onset is recommended, as data suggest that early symptom control is associated with improved long-term symptom control. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are effective CU therapies available, achieving early symptom control remains one of the biggest challenges in CU.

Cultural and linguistic barriers prevent patients from receiving the frequent clinician feedback needed for symptom assessment and treatment. Another significant barrier to achieving early symptom control is inadequate access to allergists. Patients report 3-6 month wait times to be seen at allergy clinics (UCSF, other academic centers, and private practices). This wait period encroaches on that early time period when achieving symptom control is critical. After patients have been seen by an allergist, distance can prevent patients from receiving the frequent follow-up needed for symptom assessment and treatment.

Proposed Solution

An online engagement platform with symptom tracking and clinician feedback would address the major barriers to adequate care – distance, cultural and linguistic barriers, and insufficient access to allergists. It would allow allergists to manage a diverse population of patients remotely and enable early symptom control critical for long-term treatment success. Existing apps created through the American College of Dermatology, Genentech/Novartis, and eResearchTechnology are only available in English and are not adequate for meaningful patient follow-up.

One emphasis will be on creating a platform with a culturally and linguistically appropriate design such that non-English-speaking patients from diverse cultural backgrounds can be included in the study cohort. We will start by conceptualizing the initial platform design with existing symptom and quality-of-life measurement tools that have been translated into Chinese and Spanish and have been validated in Chinese and Latin@ populations. From there, we plan to use semi-structured interviews of chronic hive patients in our clinics (initially English-speaking and Chinese-speaking) to guide platform design so that it is tailored to cultural and linguistic needs. If our initial pilot studies are successful, our plan is to expand the platform to include culturally and linguistically appropriate tools for Spanish-speaking Latin@ patients. In this way, we hope to potentially adapt existing symptom and quality-of-life measurement tools to culturally diverse populations. 

Our proposed platform and studies would assess the cultural appropriateness of smartphone-based health data and best strategies for patient engagement across diverse populations.

A CU cohort lends itself well to this type of platform.

  1. There are well-validated tools to measure symptoms. The Urticaria Activity Score (UAS-7) and Itch Severity Scale (ISS) are recommended for use in routine practice and in clinical trials to measure disease severity. Symptom tracking allows patients to better identify non-allergic triggers and specific physical triggers, which affect 25% of patients with CU.
  2. There are validated quality of life tools such as the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2OL) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).
  3. CU therapies are known to be effective in up to 97% of patients, and the main difficulty with symptom control is access to care and adequate follow-up. Therefore, an online platform that enables early access and frequent follow-up is primed for success.

Validated CU tools have been translated into multiple languages and studied in diverse populations, which supports the creation of a platform with a culturally and linguistically appropriate design and function.

There are tools that have been translated into Chinese and studied in Chinese populations. There are also tools that we would need to translate and do field testing in our population to make sure they are understandable and reliable. We have outlined these tools below. We would ask for community partner input (patients, allergists, primary care physicians) to determine which tools would be preferred for use in the app. Lulu Tsao, who is fluent in English and Chinese, will conduct semi-structured interviews with Chinese and Chinese-American patients to gauge their interest in an app, how they would want to use an app (symptoms, messaging, photos), and whether they would want recommendations from an allergist via an app.

  1. The UAS has been used in research studies in both mainland China and Taiwan. It was used in a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 patients in tertiary hospitals in different provinces.
  2. The DLQI has also been used for Chinese patients and an official Chinese (traditional and simplified) version is available online. This version was studied among 148 patients with CU in Taiwan and found to have high reliability.
  3. The Urticaria Control Test (UCT) is available in 30 languages and consists of only 4 questions, although the translated versions are not readily available.
  4. The CU-Q20L has not been translated or validated in Chinese populations, and translation and field testing with our population is needed to make sure it is understandable and reliable.

If an initial pilot in a Chinese-speaking population is successful, our plan is to also expand the platform to include Spanish-speaking patients. At that point, similar review of existing symptom and quality of life scoring tools and discussions with the appropriate community partners will be undertaken to determine which tools are most suitable for this patient population. In terms of already validated tools, the UAS and UAS7 were validated by researchers in Spain in a multicenter study of 166 patients and found to have good internal consistency, reliability, and sensitivity to change.

Chinese UAS7

Spanish UAS7

 

Ideally, the Eureka Research Platform would be used for the following aspects of the online platform. Features within each section are listed in order of highest to lowest priority.

A. Electronic consent
  1. Study enrollment
  2. Medical release form: On enrollment, patients will specify which providers they would like to keep informed about their hive treatment and sign a medical release form to grant these providers HIPAA-compliant access to a report of their work-up and treatment plans.
  3. Omalizumab (advanced CU treatment) consent form: This capability will prevent delays in care that occur when medication orders cannot be processed because patients cannot come to clinic to sign consent.

B. Symptom tracking: As there are pros and cons to each of the tools described, we will work with community partners to determine which tools will be used in the platform.

  1. UAS / UAS-7: Allow patients to track their symptoms daily, or even multiple times a day, a request made by users of current apps.
  2. Record hive triggers: Allow patients to track and identify non-allergic and physical triggers for urticaria.
  3. PHQ-2 / PHQ-9: Use depression screening tools to identify patients who could benefit from timely referral to psychology or psychiatry as appropriate. Up to 50% of patients with CU are affected by depression but many of them do not seek treatment. If possible, collaboration with existing online therapy apps would be ideal.
  4. Quality of life reports: Incorporate CU-specific quality of life surveys (CU-Q2OL, DLQI) to assess CU wellness over time.
  5. Smartphone-based reminders: Patients can opt in for reminders to submit their daily scores and response to medications.

C. Store patient-generated health data

  1. Data storage (photos of hives, photos of medication, pre-populated symptom lists, and speech-text interfaces) that reduces the need for real-time translation would improve patient-provider engagement and facilitate shared decision-making. It would clarify what treatments non-English-speaking patients are using.
  2. Having a report of patient-generated health data that can be recorded by patients from diverse cultural and language backgrounds would allow patients and providers to better engage in meaningful shared decision-making.

D. Facilitate communication between patients and allergists

  1. It would be ideal if allergists could remotely access the patient-reported data for their patients. This would allow patients to share their symptom and quality of life scores and update their allergist about what prescription, over-the-counter, and herbal medications they are taking. The allergist would take this data and recommend medication changes if necessary. A platform that could interface with Epic would streamline provider workflow, but it would be understandable if that feature is not a possibility.
  2. If allergists can’t access the patient-reported data unless the patient comes to clinic, the platform would still be helpful in terms of decreasing cultural and language barriers between the patient and the provider, because the app would store patient-generated health data (symptom-tracking data, medication use data, and possible triggers for the hives) that could be reviewed during the appointment. However, in this case the app would not help in terms of eliminating distance and time barriers for patients.

E. Facilitate data transfer between patients, allergists, and PCP providers

  1. The platform would generate a report of patients' work-up and treatment plans that can be faxed to their primary care providers for the allergy office.
  2. The platform would also serve as an updated physical “medical file” that the patient could show any provider during in-person clinic visits. As such, especially if the platform could interface with Epic, this study would also be an exploration into whether smartphone-based health data owned and carried by patients is indeed an effective way to store health data so that it is accessible by patients and their providers.

F. Linkage to EHR

  1. We could connect treatment response in our cohort to clinical data, such as autoantibody levels, to better understand the biology of CU.

Partnership with community advisors will be integral to the success of our proposed engagement platform for CU patients. As one of the highlights of our proposed platform is that it will be accessible by diverse populations, it is imperative that we work with community partners to gauge their interest in our project and to ask for their input regarding the platform.  

  1. Primary care physicians at UCSF
  2. Primary care physicians in the San Francisco Bay Area
  3. Primary care physicians who work at clinics focused on care for patients of Chinese backgrounds (Chinatown Public Health Center in SFHN, Chinese Hospital, etc.)
  4. Chinese traditional medicine and acupuncture clinics in San Francisco
  5. Local organizations such as Asian Alliance for Health, Asian Health Institute, Chinese Community Health Resource Center, and Southeast Asia Research Institute.
  6. Patients with chronic hives
    1. English-speaking
    2. Chinese-speaking
    3. Spanish-speaking, if initial pilot with Chinese-speaking population is successful
We would like to ask primary care physicians:
  1. What can we do to make this engagement platform useful for your patients and for you?
  2. Do you think that it will be helpful to broaden recruitment to chronic hive patients who are not referred to allergy practices?
  3. What outcome measures would you be interested in knowing?

We would like to ask traditional medicine and acupuncture clinics about their current practices and how they might be integrated into our platform. Patients are increasingly interested in the role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in treating atopic conditions such as hives. It is also important to improve our understanding of how patients, particularly Asian patients, perceive and use CAM. 

Chronic hives may be of particular interest to Asian-American health organizations because chronic hives can be associated with chronic infections, such as H. pylori and hepatitis B and C, which are more prevalent among Asian populations. If of interest to primary care providers, we could discuss integration of outreach and education about these chronic infections in Asian populations with chronic hives.
 
We would like to ask patients with chronic hives:
  1. What can we do to make this engagement platform useful for you?
  2. Which symptom-tracking and quality-of-life tools would you want in the platform?
  3. We would also discuss any specific culturally important aspects of care that patients would like integrated into an engagement platform.
Study Cohort
 
The study cohort would consist of patients referred to the UCSF Allergy/Immunology clinic for hives who have smartphones to access the platform. Our goal is to then work with community partners (primary care physicians, patients, community allergists) and offer this app as a means to accessing allergy care for hives with a UCSF Allergy Clinic provider.
 
Study Plan
 
Our plan is to use qualitative feedback from current chronic hive patients in our clinic to guide platform design and function. Then, we will perform initial feasibility pilot studies in English-speaking and Chinese-speaking patients. If the initial pilot study is successful and community partners show interest, we can obtain qualitative feedback from current Spanish-speaking Latin@ chronic hive patients to tailor the platform design and function to the Latin@ population and perform a feasibility pilot study with Spanish-speaking patients. Our long-term goal is to perform a randomized clinical trial with a non-intervention group.
 
Creating the platform:
 
We will start by conceptualizing the initial platform design with existing symptom and quality-of-life measurement tools that have been translated into Chinese and have been validated in Chinese-speaking populations. From there, we plan to use semi-structured interviews of chronic hive patients in our clinics (initially English-speaking and Chinese-speaking) to guide platform design so that it is tailored to cultural and linguistic needs.
 
Feasibility pilot study:
 
After creating the platform, we will do an initial feasibility pilot study where the patients will serve as their own control. We will do two separate feasibility pilot studies, one for English-speaking patients and one for Chinese-speaking patients.
 
Primary aim: 
  1. Is there a clinically relevant difference at week 8 in the Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) compared to baseline?

Secondary research aims:

  1. Investigate if there are clinically relevant differences between baseline and week 8 for other measurement outcomes requested by community partners, such as quality of life
  2. Obtain Kaplan-Meier estimates of the distribution of time to first minimum important difference (MID) response in UAS7 (i.e. time to a reduction from baseline in ≥ 10 points) to estimate the median time to MID.
  3. Compare the two language cohorts to identify differences in frequency of using the platform, frequency of messaging, or effect on UAS outcome that are potentially related to language accessibility

We expect to enroll 17 patients to detect a mean change in UAS7 at 8 weeks from baseline of 11 points (standard deviation 9 points) with 90% statistical power. This is based on a paired t-test, alpha of 0.05. A total of 34 patients will be recruited, 17 in each subgroup (English-speaking and Chinese-speaking patients). We would be able to enroll this number of patients within three months given the volume of hive patients we see. The minimal clinically important difference for the UAS7 is 10-11 points, and the standard deviation of the mean UAS7 at baseline in CU studies is 9 points. If we are able to combine the two cohorts, Asian speaking and English speaking, and/or enroll 20 people in each subgroup, we will explore the trajectory over time using a linear mixed-effects regression model.

As stated, if the initial pilot study is successful and community partners show interest, we will obtain qualitative feedback from current Spanish-speaking Latin@ chronic hive patients to tailor the platform design and function to the Latin@ population and perform a feasibility pilot study with Spanish-speaking patients.

Next steps: Randomized control trial (RCT)

If the feasibility studies are successful in showing a clinically relevant difference at week 8 in the Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) compared to baseline, our long-term goal is to conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) with a non-intervention group. The intervention arm would consist of patients treated by allergy providers who offer the platform, and the control arm would consist of patients treated by allergy providers who do not offer the platform and track patient symptom scores using paper forms and analog patient diaries. The clinic scheduler will randomize patients referred for hives to the intervention or control arm. Prior to starting the RCT, we will work with a biostatistician to finalize the study design and statistical analyses pending community partner input and outcomes of initial feasibility studies.

 Next steps: RCT Primary Aim

  1. Is there a clinically relevant difference at week 8 in the UAS7 between the intervention and the control group?

 Next steps: RCT secondary research questions:

  1. Does an online platform allow patients to engage sooner with an allergist after initial referral to Allergy is placed? 
  2. Compared to routine care (in-person visits), does an online platform for self-directed symptom tracking and clinician engagement achieve symptom control more quickly?
  3. Does achieving symptom control in the first 12 weeks after symptom onset result in increased likelihood of remission (complete control of symptoms without treatment) at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after symptom onset?
  4. Are improvements in symptom control associated with improvements in the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2OL)?
Study team
 
Our study team would include allergists in the UCSF Allergy/Immunology clinic who have CU patients, including fellows and attendings. Allergists offer the platform to patients with CU who meet the above criteria. We can also reach out via phone or Epic to patients who have already been referred to our clinic for urticaria but not yet had a visit to see if they are interested in enrolling. The main PI would be Dr. Iris Otani who specializes in treatment of patients with CU in our clinic. The main project lead would be Lulu Tsao, an internal medicine resident with interest in developing technology solutions for diverse patient populations. Lulu previously worked on an asthma inhaler-game app interface for children at a federally qualified health center. We do not anticipate needing funding support for the first year beyond that provided by the Diverse eCohort team. In terms of sustainability through Fall 2020 and beyond, once an online platform has been created, we would be able to continue enrolling patients with CU as part of our clinic workflow. We will continue collecting data through the platform and will apply for funding for statistical assistance, technical maintenance, and any translation services from grants such as the Pilot for Junior Investigators in Basic and Clinical/Translation Sciences through the CSTI, and junior faculty grants through the ACAAI and AAAAI.
 
References
 
  1. Saini SS, Kaplan AP. Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: The Devil's Itch. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul - Aug;6(4):1097-1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.04.013.
  2. Deza G, Ricketti PA, Giménez-Arnau AM, Casale TB. Emerging Biomarkers and Therapeutic Pipelines for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul - Aug;6(4):1108-1117.
  3. Zuberbier T, Bernstein JA. A Comparison of the United States and International Perspective on Chronic Urticaria Guidelines. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul - Aug;6(4):1144-1151. Epub 2018 May 18.
  4. Hawro T, Ohanyan T, Schoepke N, Metz M, Peveling-Oberhag A, Staubach P, Maurer M, Weller K. The Urticaria Activity Score-Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul - Aug;6(4):1185-1190.e1. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
  5. Greenberger PA. Chronic Urticaria: new management options. World Allergy Organ J. 2014 Nov 5;7(1):31.
  6. Bernstein JA et. al. The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 May;133(5):1270-7.
  7. Vietri J et. al. Effect of chronic urticaria on US patients: analysis of the National Health and Wellness Survey.Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015 Oct;115(4):306-11.
  8. Zhong H, Song Z, Chen W, Li H, He L, Gao T, Fang H, Guo Z, Xv J, Yu B, Gao X, Xie H, Gu H, Luo D, Chen X, Lei T, Gu J, Cheng B, Duan Y, Xv A, Zhu X, Hao F. Chronic urticaria in Chinese population: a hospital-based multicenter epidemiological study. Allergy 2014; 69: 359–364.
  9. Liu JB, Yao MZ, Si AL, Xiong LK, Zhou H. Life quality of Chinese patients with chronic urticaria as assessed by the dermatology life quality index. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Oct;26(10):1252-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04277.x. Epub 2011 Sep 29.
  10. Balañá M, Valero A, Giménez Arnau A, Ferrer M, Jauregui I, Ballesteros C; study group of EVALUAS. Validation of The Spanish Version of The Urticaria Activity Score (Uas) and Its Use Over One Week (Uas7).Value Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A426. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.584. Epub 2015 Oct 20. *note this was for Novartis.
Existing Apps
  1. Chronic Hives by the American Academy of Dermatology. https://www.aad.org/members/aad-apps/chronic-urticaria-for-public.
  2. CIU Tracker. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ciu-tracker/id977990786?mt=8
  3. Target My Hives. http://myhives.com/en/
 

Comments

Thanks for taking the time to submit. Would it be possible for you to share a 150-word plain language summary of your idea? How would you describe this to your next door neighbor?

Our selection committee has both UCSF and non-UCSF community-based members so a short accessible summary will make it easier for everyone to engage. 

CU-HIVES -- Chronic Urticaria: Helping Improve Virtual Engagement Study

Imagine having hives unpredictably at work, at the gym, while trying to sleep… there is no escape. You wait 4 months to see an allergist and start medications, but it’s hard to come in for frequent follow-up, and you can’t use MyChart to contact your doctor because it’s in English. Months later, not much has changed, and you are frustrated. All too commonly, this is the experience of patients with chronic urticaria, a condition with spontaneous, itchy hives and swelling that is highly disruptive to their quality of life.

The CU-HIVES Platform will enable patients and providers to work together to address symptoms quickly, regardless of distance or language. Patients can use the online portal to track their symptoms and receive timely individualized feedback from their doctor. Importantly, the platform will be inclusive of different languages and patients with limited literacy, helping them access allergists and achieve faster and longer-lasting relief from their hives.

Have you considered recruiting directly from the community?  What that be possible?

Thanks for your comment! Yes, we think that would be possible as we already receive many referrals from outside of UCSF. Once we developed a platform, this could represent the first contact with patients who are otherwise on our waitlist to be seen. 

If we're understanding correctly, there are barriers to having a first contact in this manner. It would be like a cold call and the person would not have an idea of what is to be expected.  In the Latin@ population, especially in the immigrant community,  a "warm hand-off" or in-person introduction/orientation is generally more effective.

Thanks for pointing this out. We agree that it would not be a good idea to cold-call patients for recruitment. For new patients, our plan is to initially offer the app in-person during an initial consult visit to patients who are referred to the UCSF Allergy Clinic for management of hives. Our goal is to then expand our services by offering the app to patients over the phone who are referred to the UCSF Allergy Clinic for management of hives when we call them to schedule their initial appointment. Our subsequent goal is to work with community partners (primary care physicians and patients) and offer this app as a means to accessing allergy care for hives with a UCSF Allergy Clinic provider. We will work with our community partners to determine best ways of offering the platform to our patients. Implementation of all steps (particularly the last step) will depend on community partner input.

Suggestion: chronic hives (Urticaria)?

Comment:  Were the instruments culturally adapted for Chinese Americans.  If not, will there be plans to?

Question: What is the follow-up plan for non-UCSF patients to ensure that the patients' providers are informed?

Thanks for raising these points! We have tried to clarify in our proposal that CU stands for chronic hives / urticaria.

Cultural appropriateness of instruments for Chinese Americans

There are tools that have been translated into Chinese and studied in Chinese populations. There are also tools that we would need to translate and do field testing in our population to make sure they are understandable and reliable. We have outlined these tools below. We would ask for community partner input (patients, allergists, primary care physicians) to determine which tools would be preferred for use in the app. Lulu Tsao, who is fluent in English and Chinese, will conduct semi-structured interviews with Chinese and Chinese American patients to gauge their interest in an app, how they would want to use an app (symptoms, messaging, photos), and whether they would want recommendations from an allergist via an app.

The UAS is a short questionnaire that has been used in research studies in both mainland China and Taiwan. It was used in a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 patients in tertiary hospitals in different provinces [1]. 

The DLQI has also been used for Chinese patients. The survey is available in numerous languages and there is an official Chinese (traditional and simplified) version available online that was translated forward and backward in Taiwan and is publically accessible. This version was studied among 148 patients with CU in Taiwan and found to have high reliability [2]. 

There are additional urticaria symptom and quality of life scoring tools such as the Urticaria Control Test (UCT) and the CU-Q20L. The UCT is available in 30 languages and consists of only 4 questions, although the translated versions are not readily available. The CU-Q20L has not been translated or validated in Chinese populations, and translation and field testing with our population is needed to make sure it is understandable and reliable.

As there are pros and cons to each of these tools, we will work with community partners to determine which tools will be used in the app.

If our initial pilot is successful, our plan is to also expand the platform to include Spanish-speaking patients. At that point, similar review of existing symptom and quality of life scoring tools and discussions with the appropriate community partners will be undertaken to determine which tools are most suitable for this patient population. In terms of already validated tools, the UAS and UAS7 were validated by researchers in Spain in a multicenter study of 166 patients and found to have good internal consistency, reliability, and sensitivity to change [3].

Chinese UAS7

Spanish UAS7

 

[1] Zhong H, Song Z, Chen W, Li H, He L, Gao T, Fang H, Guo Z, Xv J, Yu B, Gao X, Xie H, Gu H, Luo D, Chen X, Lei T, Gu J, Cheng B, Duan Y, Xv A, Zhu X, Hao F. Chronic urticaria in Chinese population: a hospital-based multicenter epidemiological study. Allergy 2014; 69: 359–364.

[2] Liu JB, Yao MZ, Si AL, Xiong LK, Zhou H. Life quality of Chinese patients with chronic urticaria as assessed by the dermatology life quality index. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Oct;26(10):1252-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04277.x. Epub 2011 Sep 29.

[3] Balañá M, Valero A, Giménez Arnau A, Ferrer M, Jauregui I, Ballesteros C; study group of EVALUAS. Validation of The Spanish Version of The Urticaria Activity Score (Uas) and Its Use Over One Week (Uas7).Value Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A426. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.584. Epub 2015 Oct 20.

Follow-up plan for non-UCSF patients to ensure patient’s providers are informed

As our plan is to initially offer the app to patients who are referred to the UCSF Allergy Clinic for management of hives, it will be standard of care to communicate patient care updates with the referring providers.

Furthermore, as part of the platform, we envision that patients will be able to specify which providers they would like to keep informed about their hive treatment, and sign a medical release form granting HIPAA-compliant transfer of their patient information. Ideally, the platform would be able to interface with Epic and/or generate a report of patients’ work-up and treatment plans that can be faxed to their primary care providers, but it would be understandable if that feature is not a possibility.  

Finally, the platform would also serve as an updated physical “medical file” that the patient could show any provider during in-person clinic visits. As such, especially if the platform could interface with Epic, this platform is also an exploration into whether smartphone-based health data owned and carried by patients is indeed an effective way to store health data so that it is accessible by patients and all their providers.   

Thanks for sharing these instruments, and for submitting this proposal.  I see that the language in the Spanish version is not in a form of Spanish used by most Spanish-speaking immigrant populations of the SF Bay Area.  I imagine partnerships with local organizations that serve those communities and work with patients and local providers who serve them could be very helpful in refining these tools.  Do you anticiapte within the one year scope of this funding you could test and refine the Chinese language tools and still have time to work on Spanish language tools?

Thank you - Our goal is to complete initial feasibility pilot studies within a year (start with English and Chinese in parallel and then Spanish) so that we will have a workable platform by the following year, although this is dependent on conversations with community partners.

I like this proposal - I think it would help us explore ways to tailor symptom-tracking so that it is culturally appropriate and effective at ongoing engagement of participants (this is a major challenge generally).  If you want to support different languages, do you already have different language versions of the validated questionnaires that you want to use?

Response: Thank you for the positive comment! We also are hopeful that this would be a first step in helping assess the cultural appropriateness of smartphone-based health data and best strategies for patient engagement across diverse populations.

We replied above with some information about different language versions of the validated questionnaires for hives, and will copy that information below as well:

There are tools that have been translated into Chinese and studied in Chinese populations. There are also tools that we would need to translate and do field testing in our population to make sure they are understandable and reliable. We have outlined these tools below. We would ask for community partner input (patients, allergists, primary care physicians) to determine which tools would be preferred for use in the app. Lulu Tsao, who is fluent in English and Chinese, will conduct semi-structured interviews with Chinese and Chinese American patients to gauge their interest in an app, how they would want to use an app (symptoms, messaging, photos), and whether they would want recommendations from an allergist via an app.

The UAS is a short questionnaire that has been used in research studies in both mainland China and Taiwan. It was used in a cross-sectional survey of about 3000 patients in tertiary hospitals in different provinces [1].

The DLQI has also been used for Chinese patients. The survey is available in numerous languages and there is an official Chinese (traditional and simplified) version available online that was translated forward and backward in Taiwan and is publically accessible. This version was studied among 148 patients with CU in Taiwan and found to have high reliability [2]. 

There are additional urticaria symptom and quality of life scoring tools such as the Urticaria Control Test (UCT) and the CU-Q20L. The UCT is available in 30 languages and consists of only 4 questions, although the translated versions are not readily available. The CU-Q20L has not been translated or validated in Chinese populations, and translation and field testing with our population is needed to make sure it is understandable and reliable.

As there are pros and cons to each of these tools, we will work with community partners to determine which tools will be used in the app.

If our initial pilot is successful, our plan is to also expand the platform to include Spanish-speaking patients. At that point, similar review of existing symptom and quality of life scoring tools and discussions with the appropriate community partners will be undertaken to determine which tools are most suitable for this patient population. In terms of already validated tools, the UAS and UAS7 were validated by researchers in Spain in a multicenter study of 166 patients and found to have good internal consistency, reliability, and sensitivity to change [3].

Chinese UAS7 

Spanish UAS7

[1] Zhong H, Song Z, Chen W, Li H, He L, Gao T, Fang H, Guo Z, Xv J, Yu B, Gao X, Xie H, Gu H, Luo D, Chen X, Lei T, Gu J, Cheng B, Duan Y, Xv A, Zhu X, Hao F. Chronic urticaria in Chinese population: a hospital-based multicenter epidemiological study. Allergy 2014; 69: 359–364.

[2] Liu JB, Yao MZ, Si AL, Xiong LK, Zhou H. Life quality of Chinese patients with chronic urticaria as assessed by the dermatology life quality index. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Oct;26(10):1252-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04277.x. Epub 2011 Sep 29.

[3] Balañá M, Valero A, Giménez Arnau A, Ferrer M, Jauregui I, Ballesteros C; study group of EVALUAS. Validation of The Spanish Version of The Urticaria Activity Score (Uas) and Its Use Over One Week (Uas7).Value Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A426. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.584. Epub 2015 Oct 20.

Are you proposing that physicians would have access to the patient-reported data for their patients?  That will be a technical challenge - possibly surmountable (we have another similar project), but if this is a requirement, it would be good to know.

Thanks for your comments! Yes, it would be ideal if allergists could access the patient-reported data for their patients. This would allow patients to share their symptom and quality of life scores and update their allergist about what prescription, over-the-counter, and herbal medications they are taking. The allergist would take this data and recommend medication changes if necessary. A platform that could interface with Epic would streamline provider workflow, but it would be understandable if that feature is not a possibility. If allergists can’t access the patient-reported data unless the patient comes to clinic, the platform would still be helpful in terms of decreasing cultural and language barriers between the patient and the provider, because the app would store symptom-tracking data, medication use data, and possible triggers for the hives that could be reviewed during the appointment. Having a report of this patient-generated health data that can be recorded by patients from diverse cultural and language backgrounds would allow patients and providers to better engage in meaningful shared decision-making.

One thing to point out - this proposal (unlike the others) plans to use Eureka as an INTERVENTION, I think.  The tracking, etc might actually lead to improvements in care and symptoms over time, and you'll test this.  Two questions: 1) Will you be randomizing patients to a control arm?  and 2) Besides the question I asked above about access to data by treating physicians, are there other aspects of the intervention that you are planning on Eureka delivering?  

Our goal is to perform a randomized clinical trial with a non-intervention group after qualitative field testing and then initial feasibility pilot studies. We will first obtain qualitative feedback with semi-structured interviews from current chronic hive patients in our clinic to guide platform design and function. Then, we will perform initial feasibility pilot studies in English-speaking and Chinese-speaking patients. If the initial pilot study is successful and community partners show interest, we can obtain qualitative feedback from current Spanish-speaking Latin@ chronic hive patients to tailor the platform design and function to the Latin@ population and perform a feasibility pilot study in Spanish-speaking patients. Based on the results of the feasibility studies and community partner input, our long-term goal is to perform a randomized clinical trial with a non-intervention group.

 

The components to our intervention that we ideally plan on Eureka delivering include (1) symptom tracking (2) increased frequency of contact with patients (if that is technically possible using Eureka) (3) consent for advanced medications such as omalizumab to prevent delays in care that occur when patients cannot come to clinic to sign consent and medication orders cannot be processed (4) image transfer to reduce the dependence on translated materials and (5) use of a digital platform to store patient-generated health data. These components could be associated with improved outcomes even without a digital platform. However, analog symptom tracking is cumbersome for patients, and follow-up with allergists more frequently than once every 1-3 months is not possible given the current patient demand / provider supply imbalance. Thus, we believe that a digital platform is the most powerful way to deliver this intervention.

Will there be incentives for patients to participate in this research study? Participation in a longitudinal study is a substantial time commitment and lack of incentives will lead to low recruitment and retention rates, which affect findings.

Thank you for the comments and questions. In particular, the first comment provides us the opportunity to address one of the difficulties in our study.

We currently do not have resources to offer monetary incentives to patients. However, our hope is that the possibility of better immediate and long-term symptom control will encourage participation. We often hear from our chronic hive patients that inadequate communication with previous providers is one of the most frustrating things about their patient experience with chronic hives, and that patients want a way to keep track of their hives better along with their provider. In a study of Taiwanese CU patients, over half changed their care provider (most more than one time) because they expected better treatment efficacy, which speaks to the frustration with symptom control. Therefore, an engagement platform for chronic hive patients is likely something that patients will want to participate in.

Retention rates may be more of a problem, as patients who achieve hive remission will likely stop using the platform. Fortunately, obtaining multiple post-intervention measurements will be built into the platform. If we see patients obtaining symptom-free periods before drop-out, this will support our hypothesis that patients who dropped out stopped using the platform because they achieved hive remission. Furthermore, as we are starting this study in our own patient population, we will be seeing these patients for follow-up and can still measure the primary outcome (symptom control one year after initial referral to Allergy is placed) in both the control and intervention groups.

Approximately how many patients do you want/need to recruit for findings? What is the estimate of number of San Franciscans, and if possible, among minority groups, who may have chronic urticaria?

Recruitment:

For initial feasibility studies, we need to recruit 17 people, and would ideally want to recruit 20 people (please see our updated proposal for power calculation performed with assistance of CTSI biostatistician). For our RCT, we will tailor the primary outcome and secondary outcome measures based on community partner input and the results of our initial pilot studies, and so we did not calculate specific sample size with a biostatistician at this time. We understand that the sample size needed for adequate power varies greatly between studies; however, as a benchmark, major clinical trials investigating the efficacy of CU medications have recruited approximately 300 patients total (for both intervention and control arms) for 95% power. We do not foresee major problems to recruitment, as there were 1684 patients seen at UCSF with the ICD-10 diagnosis code L50.1 between 7/1/2017 and 6/30/2018. This number under-represents the true number of patients seen with urticaria as many urticaria patients are labeled with ICD-10 codes for dermatitis, rash, or pruritus. We also foresee this number remaining stable or increasing in the future, as the incidence and prevalence of allergic conditions is on the rise.

There is a need for better studies investigating the incidence and prevalence of chronic urticaria in minority populations. 

 Prevalence:

Based on San Francisco census estimates and epidemiological data that urticaria affects 1% of the general population, approximately 8,843 people are affected with chronic urticaria in San Francisco. Asians would account for 3,000 of the 8,843 affected patients and Latin@ patients would account for 1,352.

Census estimates (as of 7/1/2017)

Population in SF (city): 884,363 --> 8,843

Asian: 33.9%

Hispanic or Latino: 15.3%

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocitycalifornia/PST045217

Interesting proposal. We wondering about the following:

1) other than Mark's suggestion/question about community recruitment, how do you see the community advisors assisting you with thinking through your proposed study (engagement, recruitment, training considerations for example)?

2) Are you looking for a specific age group for this project? The use of smartphones by Latin@ elders - over 75- is definitely lower than TAY for example.. does anyone know the breakdown of smartphone usage in our diverse community?  Curious to know and how that would impact who you are recruiting

3) how are you entering culturally and linguistically appropriate responses and/or app interactions? - have you field tested how the questions are interpreted? The app content will require field testing to ensure culturally and linguistically appropriate design and function - especially onhow the follow-up interface looks like.

4)  confused as to why physicians would not have access to patient responses? can someone explain. Mark responded that there is a potential technical challenge - hmmmm - we don't know about the tech part to understand why doctors wouldn't have access. -- is the expectation that Drs are communicating to patient and/or other quality staff? 

5) Do you plan on translating the MyChart for the study? We don't know enough of MyChart and its use however we do know that basic translation of any software interface is a neccesity and essential

 

Thank you for the comments and questions! Please let us know if you’d like further clarification of our responses below.

 

1) other than Mark's suggestion/question about community recruitment, how do you see the community advisors assisting you with thinking through your proposed study (engagement, recruitment, training considerations for example)?

 

To answer your first question, we are planning to reach out to the following community partners to gauge their interest in our project and for their input regarding the platform.

  1. Primary care physicians at UCSF
  2. Primary care physicians in the San Francisco Bay Area
  3. Primary care physicians who work at clinics focused on care for patients of Chinese backgrounds (Chinatown Public Health Center in SFHN, Chinese Hospital, etc.)
  4. Chinese traditional medicine and acupuncture clinics in San Francisco
  5. Local organizations such as Asian Alliance for Health, Asian Health Institute, Chinese Community Health Resource Center, and Southeast Asia Research Institute.
  6. Patients with chronic hives
    1. English-speaking
    2. Chinese-speaking
    3. Spanish-speaking, if initial pilot with Chinese-speaking population is successful

 

We would like to ask primary care physicians:

  1. What can we do to make this engagement platform useful for your patients and for you?
  2. Do you think that it will be helpful to broaden recruitment to chronic hive patients who are not referred to allergy practices?
  3. What outcomes measures would you be interested in knowing?

 

We would like to ask traditional medicine and acupuncture clinics about their current practices and how they might be integrated into our platform.

 

Chronic hives may be of particular interest to Asian-American health organizations because chronic hives can be associated with chronic infections, such as H. pylori and hepatitis B and C, which are more prevalent among Asian populations. If of interest to primary care providers, we could discuss integration of outreach and education about these chronic infections in Asian populations with chronic hives.

 

We would like to ask patients with chronic hives:

  1. What can we do to make this engagement platform useful for you?
  2. We would also want to review the various symptom-tracking and quality-of-life tools that could be used in the platform. We would also want to discuss any specific culturally important aspects of care that patients would like integrated into an engagement platform.

 

2) Are you looking for a specific age group for this project? The use of smartphones by Latin@ elders - over 75- is definitely lower than TAY for example.. does anyone know the breakdown of smartphone usage in our diverse community?  Curious to know and how that would impact who you are recruiting

 

Response:

Epidemiological studies have found that the peak incidence of hives is in a younger population, age 20-40, which is better-suited for digital intervention.

 

3) how are you entering culturally and linguistically appropriate responses and/or app interactions? - have you field tested how the questions are interpreted? The app content will require field testing to ensure culturally and linguistically appropriate design and function - especially onhow the follow-up interface looks like.

 

Response:

We definitely agree that field testing is necessary to ensure culturally and linguistically appropriate design and function. We will start by conceptualizing the initial platform design with existing symptom and quality-of-life measurement tools that have been translated into Chinese and Spanish and have been validated in Chinese and Latin@ populations. From there, we plan to use semi-structured interviews of chronic hive patients in our clinics (initially English-speaking and Chinese-speaking, and then Spanish-speaking) to guide subsequent design of the platform so that it is tailored to their cultural and linguistic needs, and to potentially adapt existing symptom and quality-of-life measurement tools to culturally diverse populations.  

 

4)  confused as to why physicians would not have access to patient responses? can someone explain. Mark responded that there is a potential technical challenge - hmmmm - we don't know about the tech part to understand why doctors wouldn't have access. -- is the expectation that Drs are communicating to patient and/or other quality staff? 

 

Response:

Please see above response to Dr. Pletcher’s question, copied here: We are hoping that allergists will be able to access the patient-reported data for their patients. This would allow patients to share their symptom and quality of life scores and update their allergist about what prescription, over-the-counter, and herbal medications they are taking. The allergist would take this data and recommend medication changes if necessary. A platform that could interface with Epic would streamline provider workflow, but it would be understandable if that feature is not a possibility. If allergists can’t access the patient-reported data unless the patient comes to clinic, the platform would still be helpful in terms of decreasing cultural and language barriers between the patient and the provider, because the app would store symptom-tracking data, medication use data, and possible triggers for the hives. Having a report of this patient-generated health data that can be recorded by patients from diverse cultural and language backgrounds would allow patients and providers to better engage in meaningful shared decision-making.

 

5) Do you plan on translating the MyChart for the study? We don't know enough of MyChart and its use however we do know that basic translation of any software interface is a neccesity and essential

 

Response: We are not planning on translating MyChart. We will use existing translations of tools for chronic hives, and further discuss feasible methods in the Eureka platform for translating patient and physician messages. This might include offering some standardized responses and using images, to minimize the need for real-time translation of free text.

Hello. Thank you for those thoughtful responses. It seems like you have thought through your approach engaging community stakeholders from physicians, clinics, and patients. I just wanted to clarify that there are community advisors on the steering committee that will be weighing in on projects and working to support them. In what way do you think community advisory members on this steering committee could be helpful to your project? 

Thanks for your question--we think there are a variety of ways that community advisors would help shape the project, including: reviewing the existing translated tools with us to help determine which are culturally appropriate for the platform; strategies for patient recruitment and outreach beyond our clinic; thinking about the role of traditional medicine and patients' health beliefs in uptake of the platform; and including issues of particular health interest to our population, e.g. the link between chronic hepatitis and chronic hives in Asian-American patients. We have asked leadership from Chinatown Public Health Center for community input on our proposal. If selected, we would solicit interest in forming a formal advisory board of community members, with input from the steering committee. 

Thank you all for the great comments, questions and clarifications.

Q1: Given that CU can be a symtom of autoimmune or malignancy, and HepB, C - have you targeted the general population in any specific way other than API population?

Q2: do HIV+/AIDS also have disporpotionate rates of CU?

Q3: I did see in a quick lit review that angio-edima can also have a co-mrbidity or be a symtom of CU? could this be a targeted population also

Q4:I gather that CU affects gen pop at 25%, have you disaggregated this by race?

Q5: given that Afrocan Americans have disprportionate chronic disease in SF and also have access challenges is there a reason you would not extend this service into AA pop?

 

 

 

Thanks for your questions!

Q1: Our goal is to create a platform that can be accessed by the general population, including the API population. The relationships between CU and autoimmunity, malignancy, and infectious conditions are still being elucidated. Having a common clinical platform for all patients with CU could help gather information that will better define these connections. However, existing platforms are not easily accessible by the API population. Our proposal focuses on creating a platform that is also accessible to the API population, which allows us to target the general population (instead of just English-speaking populations). 

Q2: We have not seen this relationship in the literature, but there have been cases of patients with HIV/AIDS developing CU and needing treatment with immunomodulatory agents.

Q3: Yes, as many as 50% of CU patients also have angioedema. The platform will be created for all patients with CU, and therefore will target CU patients both with and without angioedema. Interestingly, the image transfer services in our proposed platform may help providers identify a non-CU category of patients who present with angioedema only. These angioedema-only patients can be mislabeled as CU with angioedema, but do not actually have any urticaria, and require different work-up and management than CU patients. For the purposes of this study we will focus on CU with/without angioedema. If we find that many angioedema-only patients are being diagnosed via the CU platform, the platform could certainly be expanded to include angioedema-only patients as well.

Q4: We apologize that we were not clear in our proposal: hives at any time point affects 25% of the population but CU, with symptoms lasting longer than 6 weeks, affects ~1-5% of the general population. More data is needed regarding how incidence and prevalence of CU may vary between different races. One study looking at a National Wellness Survey of 270 patients with a current prescription for chronic hives had the following race/ethnicity breakdown: 68% white, 12.2% black, 7.8% Hispanic, 6.7% Asian, and 5.2% other. However, this was a very small group and limited to active treatment, not just diagnosis.

Q5: Thank you for the suggestion! We agree we should ensure our services are accessible to the African American population and we should discuss with community advisors how to tailor the platform to make it more accessible to the African American population as well. We can also make sure we outreach to African-American patients represented in our clinic cohort for input on the platform function and design. If our proposal is approved, we would greatly appreciate any suggestions regarding potential community partners who would be interested in providing input into making the platform more accessible to the African American population.

Commenting is closed.