Advancing equity in cancer research through principled partnership: stakeholder engagement practices in The Social Interventions for Support during Treatment for Endometrial cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In cancer, lack of social support is associated with reduced survival. Peer support interventions have reduced social isolation among Black women with cancer but have yet to be adapted for Black people diagnosed with endometrial cancer – a growing, high-need demographic that has been historically excluded from community-engaged research. Our research team at the University of Washington addressed this gap by working within an established community partnership to develop a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to adapt and test social support interventions among Black women with EC – the Social Interventions for Support during Treatment of Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) Study. The goal of this commentary is to describe the stakeholder engagement practices used in the conceptualization and start-up of the SISTER Study. The research team, including Black endometrial cancer survivors, developed a grant proposal, grounded in engagement values derived from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® and the Public Health Critical Race Praxis. The team implemented values-aligned stakeholder engagement activities, including the creation of an advisory board charter, structuring meetings and roles, incorporating stakeholder input into study material and protocols, establishing an external advisory board, and developing an engagement evaluation plan. Overall, we learned that it is possible to design and operationalize a community-engaged pragmatic randomized controlled trial in alignment with a racial equity social justice research methodology and patient-centered outcomes research engagement practices. We describe other lessons learned, including operational challenges to implementing our engagement practices and our approaches to addressing these challenges, and promising practices to replicate in future studies or partnerships. The SISTER Study is an example of establishing principled methods of stakeholder engagement within an area of study and population that has been underrepresented in stakeholder-engaged research. The engagement practices within the SISTER Study can inform community-academic partnership practices in health equity research. Black people diagnosed with endometrial cancer have a higher chance of dying from the disease compared with White women, and this population has been historically excluded from community-engaged research. Peer support during treatment can improve survival in other cancers, but this has not been tested among Black women with endometrial cancer. To address this gap, our research team at the University of Washington developed a study to test social support interventions among Black women with endometrial cancer in collaboration with patient partners – the Social Interventions for Support during Treatment of Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) Study. We describe how the research team partnered with Black cancer survivors and caregivers to design and launch a study grounded in engagement values intended to advance equity in the process and outcomes of health services research. Stakeholder engagement activities included establishing a foundational partnership with Black endometrial cancer survivors, collaborating to conceptualize and write a grant, creating an advisory board charter, establishing an external advisory board, structuring meetings and roles, incorporating stakeholder input into study material and protocols, and developing an engagement evaluation plan. The partnership practices and lessons learned presented in this comment can inform community-academic partnerships in research that aim to address racial inequities in health.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,049 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».