MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414367897 · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaf047

Assessing multilevel barriers and facilitators to implementing strategies for cancer screening among Asian Americans in federally qualified health centers: a case study of a community–clinic partnership to improve care for safety-net patients

2025· article· en· W4414367897 on OpenAlex
Samantha García, Sora Park Tanjasiri, Jacqueline Tran, Ellen Ahn, Sherry Huang, Becky Nguyen, Jennifer Tsui

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Behavioral Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsHealth Care FoundationHome and Community Care Support Services
FundersNational Cancer InstituteBristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
KeywordsGeneral partnershipCancer screeningAsian americansHealth equityPublic healthHealth psychologyHealth careCancerCultural competence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening disparities among medically underserved Asian Americans are well documented. Assessing determinants of success in implementing multilevel cancer screening strategies in safety-net settings is critical to improve screening and cancer equity. METHODS: Academic, clinic, and community partners established the Advancing Care Together (ACCT) formal network to implement multilevel strategies that promote cancer screening among low-income Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese adults in Orange County, California. ACCT focused on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. From August 2018 to January 2021, meetings, surveys, and interviews were conducted with community and clinic partners before implementing evidence-based strategies (EBS) such as educational workshops and community navigation, aligned with cultural and linguistic factors, to increase cancer screening. We evaluated formative data, collected during meetings and interviews and via patient navigator intake forms, to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing EBS in Asian-serving community clinics. We assembled a code book, aligned with the exploration, preparation, implementation, and sustainment framework to guide data analysis of implementation determinants of cancer screening. RESULTS: During the implementation of cancer screening EBS, ACCT staff and community navigators identified barriers in the inner context (lack of language-concordant providers, staff turnover) and outer context (referral wait times, transportation, and cultural stigma). Academic and community partnerships can support multilevel EBS to increase cancer screening (bridging factors). Additional support for clinic and quality improvement staff may be needed to evaluate cancer screening outcomes, and routine training on evaluating electronic medical records is needed (innovation factors). CONCLUSION: Community-clinic-academic partnerships can increase cancer screening and awareness in Asian American communities, including addressing cultural screening barriers and identifying adaptation needs for educational materials. Additionally, longstanding clinic- and community-level barriers persist in federally qualified health centers serving underrepresented Asian American communities. These barriers in the cancer screening process include high turnover among clinic quality improvement teams and difficulty prioritizing cancer screening throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.250
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it