Purpose

This project sought to test the role of diet-related inflammation in modulating the risk of oesophageal cancer.

Methods

A nationwide population-based case-control study was conducted from 1 December 1994 through 31 December 1997 in Sweden. All newly diagnosed patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or gastroesophageal junction and a randomly selected half of patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma were eligible as cases. Using the Swedish Registry of the Total Population, the control group was randomly selected from the entire Swedish population and frequency-matched on age (within 10 years) and sex. The literature-derived dietary inflammatory index (DII) was developed to describe the inflammatory potential of diet. DII scores were computed based on a food frequency questionnaire. Higher DII scores indicate more pro-inflammatory diets. Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were computed to assess risk associated between DII scores and oesophageal cancer using logistic regression adjusted by potential confounders.

Results

In total, 189 oesophageal adenocarcinomas, 262 gastroesophageal junctional adenocarcinomas, 167 oesophageal squamous cell carcinomas, and 820 control subjects were recruited into the study. Significant associations with DII were observed for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ORQuartile4vs1 4.35, 95 % CI 2.24, 8.43), oesophageal adenocarcinoma (ORQuartile4vs1 3.59, 95 % CI 1.87, 6.89), and gastroesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma (ORQuartile4vs1 2.04, 95 % CI 1.24, 3.36). Significant trends across quartiles of DII were observed for all subtypes of oesophageal cancer.

Conclusions

Diet-related inflammation appears to be associated with an increased risk of oesophageal cancer, regardless of histological type.

PROBLEM: Rules for protecting human subjects, in place federally since 1974, have focused primarily on guarding against placing research subjects at social, physical, or psychological risk or violating their privacy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, high-risk communities are routinely subjected to sins of omission, which limit access to potentially significant research opportunities and result in the absence of studies that could confer high degree of community beneficence. PURPOSE OF ARTICLE: To describe sins of omission and provide examples from the Community Networks Program Centers (CNPC) to illustrate how community-based participatory research (CBPR) can prevent them. KEY POINTS: CBPR is an effective antidote to sins of omission. Activities undertaken by the CNPCs illustrate how adherence to CBPR principles can improve research access and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: By working with community members as partners, we expand the concept of beneficence to include community beneficence, thus reducing the probability of sins of omission.

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed.

Background and objective

The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) provide community-based participatory research (CBPR)-oriented mentoring and training to prepare early-stage/midcareer investigators and student trainees (trainees) in disparities reduction. This paper describes the academic, mentoring, training, and work-life balance experiences of CNPC-affiliated trainees.

Methods

We used a collaborative and iterative process to develop a 57-item, web-based questionnaire completed by trainees from the 23 CNPCs between August 2012 and February 2013. Their CNPC mentors completed a 47-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

Results

The final analytic sample included 189 of 269 individuals (70%) identified as active participants in CNPC research or training/mentoring. Mentors (n=45) were mostly non-Hispanic White (77.8%) and 48.9% were male. Mentors published a median of 6 (interquartile range [IQR], 3-12) first-authored and 15 (IQR, 6-25) senior authored manuscripts, and secured 15 (IQR, 11-29) grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other sources in the previous 5 years. Most trainees (n=144) were female (79.2%), 43.7% were underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities, and 36.8% were first-generation college graduates. Over the previous 5 years, trainees reported a median of 4 (IQR, 1-6) publications as first author and 4 (IQR, 2-8) as co-author; 27.1% reported having one or more NIH R01s. Trainees reported satisfaction with their CNPC mentor (79.1%) and confidence in demonstrating most CBPR competencies.

Conclusion

The CNPC training program consists of a scientifically productive pool of mentors and trainees. Trainees reported rates of scholarly productivity comparable to other national training programs and provided insights into relationships with mentors, academic pressures, and professional-personal life balance.

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed.

Problem

Rules for protecting human subjects, in place federally since 1974, have focused primarily on guarding against placing research subjects at social, physical, or psychological risk or violating their privacy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, high-risk communities are routinely subjected to "sins of omission," which limit access to potentially significant research opportunities and result in the absence of studies that could confer high degree of community beneficence.

Purpose of article

To describe "sins of omission" and provide examples from the Community Networks Program Centers (CNPC) to illustrate how community-based participatory research (CBPR) can prevent them.

Key points

CBPR is an effective antidote to sins of omission. Activities undertaken by the CNPCs illustrate how adherence to CBPR principles can improve research access and outcomes.

Conclusions

By working with community members as partners, we expand the concept of beneficence to include "community beneficence," thus reducing the probability of "sins of omission."

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a major public health concern in the United States and worldwide. The dietary inflammatory index (DII) and the energy-adjusted DII (E-DII) are tools that assess dietary inflammation. Previous evidence suggests that obesity can modify the association between inflammation and disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the DII/E-DII and incident diabetes in self-identified Hispanic women from the Womens Health Initiative (WHI). The secondary aim was to evaluate whether obesity modifies the association between the DII/E-DII scores and incident diabetes. DESIGN: Participants were from the WHI Observational Study and the Clinical Trial Components (except women from the treatment arm in the Dietary Modification Trial) conducted among postmenopausal women in the United States. DII/E-DII scores were calculated from a self-administered food frequency questionnaire at baseline that included 122 food items, of which 12 are representative of Hispanic eating patterns. PARTICIPANTS/SETTINGS: Participants included 3,849 postmenopausal women who self-identified as Hispanic that were recruited for the WHI from 1993 to 1998 at 40 US clinical centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome was incident diabetes. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED: Cox regression models were used to assess the association between DII/E-DII and incident diabetes. Models were adjusted for age at baseline, lifestyle-related risk factors, known type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk factors, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Interaction was tested between the DII/E-DII scores and obesity. RESULTS: The incidence of diabetes was 13.1% after a median follow-up of 13 years. Higher E-DII scores were associated with a higher risk of incident diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.14). There was no interaction between E-DII scores and obesity (P = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Pro-inflammatory diets, as measured by higher E-DII scores, were associated with a higher risk of incident diabetes. Future research is needed for understanding how the inflammatory potential of diets can be decreased.

Background

To evaluate the association between the dietary inflammatory index (DII^®) and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Hispanic women from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), and to determine if body mass index (BMI) interacted with the DII scores.

Methods

Secondary analysis of baseline dietary data and long-term CVD outcomes among 3,469 postmenopausal women who self-identified as Hispanic enrolled in WHI. DII scores were calculated from self-administered food frequency questionnaires. The CVD outcomes included coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. Stratified Cox regression models were used to assess the relationship between DII scores and CVD in women with and without obesity. Models were adjusted for age, lifestyle risk factors, known risk factors, and neighborhood socioeconomic status.

Results

The incidence of CHD was 3.4 and 2.8% for stroke after a median follow-up of 12.9 years. None of the DIIs were associated with CVD risk in this sample of Hispanic women. BMI interacted with the DII (p < 0.20) and stratified models showed that the associations between the DII and CVD were only significant in women with overweight (p < 0.05). In this group, higher DII scores were associated with a higher risk of CHD (HR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.51) and a higher risk of stroke (HR 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.64).

Conclusion

Among postmenopausal Hispanic women with overweight, greater adherence to pro-inflammatory diets was associated with higher risk of CVD. Additional research is needed to understand how to promote long-term heart-healthy dietary habits to reduce inflammation and prevent CVD in at-risk Hispanic women.

Background

Although cancer research has advanced at a rapid pace, a gap remains between what is known about how to improve cancer prevention and control (CPC) and what is implemented as best practices within health care systems and communities. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN), with more than 10 years of dissemination and implementation research experience, aims to accelerate the uptake and use of evidence-based CPC interventions.

Methods

The collective work of the CPCRN has facilitated the analysis and categorization of research and implementation efforts according to the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF), providing a useful heuristic for bridging the gap between prevention research and practice. The ISF authors have called for examples of its application as input to help refine the model.

Results

We provide examples of how the collaborative activities supported by the CPCRN, using community-engaged processes, accelerated the synthesis and translation of evidence, built both general and innovation-specific capacity, and worked with delivery systems to advance cancer control research and practice.

Conclusions

The work of the CPCRN has provided real-world examples of the application of the ISF and demonstrated that synthesizing and translating evidence can increase the potential that evidence-based CPC programs will be used and that capacity building for both the support system and the delivery system is crucial for the successful implementation and maintenance of evidence-based cancer control.

Impact

Adoption and implementation of CPC can be enhanced by better understanding ISF systems and intervening to improve them.

Objectives

We examined how National Cancer Institute-funded Community Network Programs (CNPs) operationalized principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR).

Methods

We reviewed the literature and extant CBPR measurement tools. On the basis of that review, we developed a 27-item questionnaire for CNPs to self-assess their operationalization of 9 CBPR principles. Our team comprised representatives of 9 of the National Cancer Institute's 25 CNPs.

Results

Of the 25 CNPs, 22 (88%) completed the questionnaire. Most scored well on CBPR principles of recognizing community as a unit of identity, building on community strengths, facilitating colearning, embracing iterative processes in developing community capacity, and achieving a balance between data generation and intervention. CNPs varied in the extent to which they employed CBPR principles of addressing determinants of health, sharing power among partners, engaging the community in research dissemination, and striving for sustainability.

Conclusions

Although the development of assessment tools in this field is in its infancy, our findings suggest that fidelity to CBPR processes can be assessed in a variety of settings.