http://academic.oup.com/tbm en-us Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT Wed, 20 Nov 2024 13:46:10 GMT Silverchair https://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/tbm/ibae051/7905673?rss=1 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT <span class="paragraphSection"><div class="boxTitle">Abstract</div>Community-based organizations (CBOs) are critical for delivering evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address cancer inequities. However, a lack of consensus on the core skills needed for this work often hinders capacity-building strategies to support EBI implementation. The disconnect is partly due to differing views of EBIs and related skills held by those typically receiving versus developing capacity-building interventions (here, practitioners and academics, respectively). Our team of implementation scientists and practice-based advisors used group concept mapping to engage 34 CBO practitioners and 30 academics with experience addressing cervical cancer inequities implementing EBIs. We created group-specific maps of skills using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis, then compared them using Procrustes comparison permutations. The 98 skills were sorted into six clusters by CBO practitioners and five by academics. The groups generated maps with statistically comparable underlying structures but also statistically significant divergence. Some skill clusters had high concordance across the two maps, e.g. “managing funding and external resources.” Other skill clusters, e.g. “adapting EBIs” from the CBO practitioner map and “selecting and adapting EBIs” from the academic map, did not overlap as much. Across groups, key clusters of skills included connecting with community members, understanding the selected EBI and community context, adapting EBIs, building diverse and equitable partnerships, using data and evaluation, and managing funding and external resources. There is a significant opportunity to combine CBO practitioners’ systems/community frames with the EBI-focused frame of academics to promote EBI utilization and address cancer and other health inequities.</span> ibae051 10.1093/tbm/ibae051 http://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae051 https://academic.oup.com/tbm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/tbm/ibae064/7896196?rss=1 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:00:00 GMT <span class="paragraphSection"><div class="boxTitle">Abstract</div>Telehealth utilization has increased since the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, reducing barriers to healthcare and, potentially, reducing participation in group health-promotion interventions. However, preferences for telehealth versus in-person formats have not been established. To examine preferences for telehealth and in-person format for primary care and group health-promotion interventions among Black and White women and men aged 20–39. We hypothesized that respondents would report a higher preference for telehealth than in-person appointments. This cross-sectional survey study recruited participants to answer questions about access to technology and preferences for telehealth and in-person formats of primary care and group health promotion. Respondents (<span style="font-style:italic;">n</span> = 404) included similar proportions of White women (24.3%, 26.4 ± 4.3 years), Black women (25.0%, 29.0 ± 6.1 years), White men (25.9%, 32.8 ± 4.5 years), and Black men (24.8%, 30.6 ± 5.2 years). About 98.5% reported having a smartphone, and 80.4% had access to a computer with a camera. Preference ratings were higher for in-person visits, compared to telehealth visits, for both primary care (<span style="font-style:italic;">M</span> = 3.86 ± 1.13 vs. <span style="font-style:italic;">M</span> = 2.87 ± 1.18) and group health promotion (<span style="font-style:italic;">M</span> = 3.72 ± 1.12 vs. <span style="font-style:italic;">M</span> = 3.04 ± 1.20) <span style="font-style:italic;">F</span>’s(1,400) &gt; 59.0, <span style="font-style:italic;">P</span>’s &lt; .001. Most young adults have access to technology, supporting the feasibility of telehealth interventions. However, telehealth preference ratings were lower than in-person appointments. Preferences for delivery formats should be considered when designing behavioral interventions to promote health and prevent disease.</span> ibae064 10.1093/tbm/ibae064 http://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae064