Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immigration has been historically and contemporarily racialized in the United States. Although each immigrant group has unique histories, current patterns, and specific experiences, racialized immigrant groups such as Latino, Asian, and Arab immigrants all experience health inequities that are not solely due to nativity or years of residence but also influenced by conditional citizenship and subjective sense of belonging or othering. Critical race theory and intersectionality provide a critical lens to consider how structural racism might uniquely impact the health of racialized immigrants, and to understand and intervene on the interlocking systems that shape these shared experiences and health consequences. We build on and synthesize the work of prior scholars to advance how society codifies structural disadvantages for racialized immigrants into governmental and institutional policies and how that affects health via three key pathways that emerged from our review of the literature: (1) formal racialization via immigration policy and citizenship status that curtails access to material and health resources and political and civic participation; (2) informal racialization via disproportionate immigration enforcement and criminalization including ongoing threats of detention and deportation; and (3) intersections with economic exploitation and disinvestment such as labor exploitation and neighborhood disinvestment. We hope this serves as a call to action to change the dominant narratives around immigrant health, provides conceptual and methodological recommendations to advance research, and illuminates the essential role of the public health sector to advocate for changes in other sectors including immigration policy, political rights, law enforcement, labor protections, and neighborhood investment, among others.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower among immigrant populations in the United States (US) than the general population. Immigrant communities face structural barriers that disincentivize their engagement from CRC screening. A growing body of literature has evaluated the effects of interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening engagement among various immigrant groups, but there has not yet been a systematic synthesis of this literature. This review will systematically evaluate quantitative studies assessing the effects of interventions designed to increase CRC screening rates among immigrant populations residing in the US. We will conduct a comprehensive search of English language peer-reviewed and grey literature using specific keywords and database-specific structured vocabulary on interventions to improve CRC screening rates among immigrants published in 7 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science) from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2024. All studies will be imported into Covidence. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-texts for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pilot screenings and consensus discussions will ensure accuracy and agreement in study selection and data extraction. Iterative data extraction of eligible studies will include critical appraisal using the Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) for randomized controlled trials, while other study designs will be appraised with the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Data synthesis will disaggregate pooled effect estimates by ethnicity, to the extent possible. The study protocol was pre-registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42023488183. This systematic review aims to generate an exhaustive summary of the evidence base, including a description of the intervention methods and settings, target populations, recruitment and retention strategies, partnerships and collaborations, and reported outcomes. The results will provide actionable recommendations for public health practitioners, healthcare providers, and policymakers developing tailored interventions and policies aimed at improving CRC screening uptake among diverse immigrant populations in the US.

Purpose Financial toxicity is a multidimensional side effect of cancer treatment. Yet, most relevant research has focused on individual-level determinants of financial toxicity and characterized only patient perspectives. This study examined the multilevel determinants of financial toxicity from the perspectives of Latina breast cancer survivors and healthcare professionals. Methods We analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with 19 Latina breast cancer survivors and interviews with 10 healthcare professionals recruited through community partners and venues in Chicago. Results At the individual-level, the lack of knowledge and prioritization regarding financial aspects of care (e.g., costs of treatment, insurance coverage) was identified as important determinants of financial toxicity. However, healthcare professionals emphasized the need for early financial planning, while survivors prioritized survival over financial concerns immediately after diagnosis. At the interpersonal-level, social networks were identified as important platforms for disseminating information on financial resources. At the community-level, community norms and dynamics were identified as important barriers to seeking financial assistance. Access to culturally astute community-based organizations was considered one potential solution to eliminate these barriers. At the organizational/healthcare policy-level, financial assistance programs’ restrictive eligibility criteria, lack of coverage post-treatment, limited availability, and instability were identified as major determinants of financial toxicity. Conclusion Our findings suggest that multilevel interventions at the individual-, interpersonal-, community-, and organizational/healthcare policy-levels are needed to adequately address financial toxicity among Latina and other survivors from disadvantaged communities.

Chicago is among the top five metropolitan areas in the United States where Arab Americans reside; however, we have little available data on their perceptions of personal or community health. We collected 200 community health surveys in collaboration with a community-based organization that serves mainly Arabs in Chicago’s southwest suburbs. The survey evaluated perceived community and personal health. In a mostly female, married, and low-income sample, participants identified cancers, diabetes, and high blood pressure/cholesterol as the top three health problems, while alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and overweight/obesity as the top three risky behaviors within the community. Gender differences, age differences, and educational level differences were found on certain determinants of health regarding the health of the community, perceived health problems, and risky behaviors. Our data validates previous findings from the literature highlighting cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure as health priorities among Arabs, but offers new insights into unidentified issues within the Arab American community in Southwest Chicago such as alcohol, drug abuse, and child neglect/abuse. Furthermore, our findings warrant the need for classifying Arabs as a separate minority population facing health disparities.

BackgroundMultilevel barriers can arise after a cancer diagnosis, especially in underserved racial/ethnic minority patient populations, raising the need for diverse and contextually adapted interventions. However, limited data exists on Arab American (ArA) cancer patients’ needs, partly due to their racial/ethnic misclassification as Whites. This study leveraged the perspectives of cancer survivors and community stakeholders (i.e., healthcare and community leaders) to identify ArA cancer patients’ needs, as well as their preferred intervention strategies to address them.MethodsUsing a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis approach, we analyzed qualitative data from interviews with 18 ArA community stakeholders recruited through community partners in Chicago.ResultsParticipants associated cancer stigma to ArA patients’ concealment of their diagnosis and aversion to cancer support groups. Economic and language barriers to treatment were emphasized. A lack of resources for ArA cancer patients was also noted and was partly attributed to their misclassification as White. In response to these needs, participants suggested peer mentorship programs to overcome privacy concerns, hospital-based patient navigation to address language and economic barriers in healthcare, diversification of the healthcare workforce to overcome language barriers, and community coalitions to recognize ArA as an ethnic group and increase cancer support resources. Such advocacy will be essential to accurately characterize patients’ cancer burden and obtain funding to support community programs and resources.ConclusionOur findings suggest that multilevel interventions at the patient, healthcare, and community levels are needed to address ArA cancer patients’ needs.

Medical mistrust, clinical trial knowledge, and clinical trial risk impact research participation, yet are rarely studied among racial and ethnic groups. Data were from a cross-sectional survey ( n  = 1,794). Multinomial logistic regression models examined associations of medical mistrust, clinical trial knowledge, and clinical trial risk with willingness to participate in health research (Yes, No, Unsure) among Chinese, Korean, South Asian, Haitian, North American Latiné, South American Latiné, and Southwest Asian and North African (SWANA) NYC residents with one model per group. Overall, 46.0% of participants reported willingness to participate, ranging from 35.8% (Chinese participants) to 58.7% (South Asian participants). Increased mistrust was associated with less willingness among Chinese (OR: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.00, 1.12) and South American Latiné (OR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.02, 1.30) participants; more willingness among Haitian participants (OR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.81, 0.94); more uncertainty among Korean (OR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.05, 1.22), South Asian (OR: 1.06 95%CI: 1.01, 1.12), and North American Latiné (OR: 1.18, 95%CI: 1.10, 1.28) participants; and less uncertainty among Haitian (OR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.84, 0.99) and SWANA (OR: 0.91, 95%CI:0.86, 0.97) participants. Knowledge was associated with more willingness for Haitian participants (OR: 2.77, 95%CI: 1.15, 6.65), less willingness for Chinese participants (OR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34, 0.88), and more uncertainty among South Asian (OR: 2.09, 95%CI: 1.07, 4.07) and SWANA (OR: 2.71, 95%CI: 1.21, 6.03) participants. Some risk and more willingness were linked for South American Latiné participants (OR: 0.13, 95%CI: 0.02, 0.82). Associations varied by group. Studying multiple racial and ethnic groups advances equitable research representation.

In response to the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities’ (NIMHD) new health disparities research framework, we call on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to acknowledge Arabs in the United States as a health disparity population. Arab classification as White leads to their cultural invisibility and perpetuates a cycle of undocumented health disparities. We provide examples of how this contested identity reinforces challenges associated with identifying this population and contributes to enactments of structural violence and undocumented health disparities. Decades of research with Arabs in the United States provides consistent evidence that their health does not fit the health profile of White Americans and that Arabs do not benefit from Whiteness and White privilege associated with their White racial categorization. On the contrary, Arabs in the United States experience discrimination and health disparities that require urgent attention; this can be achieved only by identifying the population with a racial category other than White. We conclude with recommendations to NIH and NIMHD to revise their definition of health disparity populations to include Arabs in the United States.

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Reflecting their commitment to advancing health equity, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) established a Health Equity Workgroup to identify and distill guiding principles rooted in health equity, community-engaged participatory research (CBPR), social determinants of health, and racial equity frameworks to guide its collective work. The Health Equity Workgroup utilized a multi-phase, participatory consensus-building approach to: (1) identify recurrent themes in health and racial equity frameworks; (2) capture perspectives on and experiences with health equity research among CPCRN members through an online survey; (3) engage in activities to discuss and refine the guiding principles; and (4) collect case examples of operationalizing equity principles in cancer research. Representatives from all CPCRN centers endorsed nine core principles to guide the Network’s strategic plan: (1) Engage in power-sharing and capacity building with partners; (2) Address community priorities through community engagement and co-creation of research; (3) Explore and address the systems and structural root causes of cancer disparities; (4) Build a system of accountability between research and community partners; (5) Establish transparent relationships with community partners; (6) Prioritize the sustainability of research benefits for community partners; (7) Center racial equity in cancer prevention and control research; (8) Engage in equitable data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination practices; and (9) Integrate knowledge translation, implementation, and dissemination into research plans. Dissemination products, such as toolkits and technical assistance workshops, reflecting these principles will foster knowledge transfer to intentionally integrate health and racial equity principles in cancer prevention and control research.

PurposeAlthough there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network’s (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations.MethodsThe CPCRN’s Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network’s experience and collaborations.ResultsData from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research.ConclusionsThe toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.