Flock, Carolyn R.

Abstract Rural and low-socioeconomic status women face social determinants of health barriers leading to disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening and markedly reduced participation in clinical trials. To address this gap, we developed the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources, and Education) intervention using a community-engaged approach. This paper describes how Community Advisory Board feedback informed the development of Mayo Clinic Health System’s WeCARE intervention components. Their input was systematically analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) to identify determinants of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and to guide actionable refinements to intervention content and delivery.

Introduction Women residing in rural areas or belonging to lower socioeconomic status (SES) strata experience disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening, contributing to delayed diagnoses and poorer prognoses. In addition, their participation in clinical trials remains markedly limited, reducing opportunities to access preventive and screening interventions. Promoting research preparedness among women before disease onset may empower them to make informed decisions regarding their health and willingness to participate in clinical research with fewer emotional and logistical barriers. Methods and analysis This project applies a community-based participatory research approach to develop and refine the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources and Education) intervention for women aged 50–74 years who have either never undergone breast cancer screening or have not received screening in the past 5 years and who reside in rural areas or belong to low SES groups. The intervention consists of two components. Component 1 is a single-day, in-person community forum that includes (a) an educational seminar led by an oncologist to address breast cancer risk and screening guidelines, (b) survivor storytelling to enhance emotional engagement and cultural resonance and (c) facilitated navigation to breast cancer screening and future research participation. Component 2 involves structured post-forum follow-up through multiple touchpoints (phone calls and mailed boosters) to reinforce knowledge, address barriers and support screening completion and research enrolment. Quantitative data (eg, screening completion, satisfaction and follow-up engagement) will be summarised using descriptive statistics to assess feasibility and reach on 50 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants will undergo thematic analysis to identify barriers, facilitators and perceived cultural relevance. Integrated mixed-method interpretation will inform iterative refinement of the WeCARE intervention and guide design of subsequent larger trials. Ethics and dissemination Approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #25–008934). All participants will provide informed consent. Procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity and participant safety. Data will be stored in REDCap and disseminated through publications, conferences, local town halls and community reports.

Abstract Introduction: The National Cancer Institute estimated almost 317,000 new breast cancer and over 13,000 new cervical cancer cases in 2025. While the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has served millions of women over the past two decades, inequities in cancer screening, subsequently delayed diagnosis, and timely and appropriate treatment remain a public health challenge in the United States. Despite the substantial impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening, few studies have accounted for SDOH at the individual level when assessing breast and cervical cancer screening adherence. The primary objective of this study is to examine whether the individual-level SDOH, measured using HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status (HOUSES) index, is associated with breast and cervical cancer screening non-adherence (not current on respective USPSTF recommendations for age and frequency). Methods: In this retrospective study, patients were identified as those receiving primary care in the Mayo Clinic Health System and Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). The Midwest Quality Metrics panel was then used to assess patients due for screening for breast or cervical cancer in July 2023. The HOUSES, using home address and publicly available data on the residence which measures and categorizes housing status into quartiles, was obtained using the electronic health records (EHRs)-linkable patient-level information. Logistic regression analyses were conducted, controlling for Census block group-level adverse social exposome from the Area Deprivation Index, age, and comorbidities. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: For breast cancer, among 128,462 eligible patients, 20.1% (n= 25,857) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.20 (95% CI=1.15, 1.25), Q2 OR=1.45; (95% CI=1.40, 1.53), and Q1 OR=1.90 (95% CI=1.81, 1.99). For cervical cancer, among 175,712 eligible patients, 29.9% (n=52,533) were non-adherent. Compared to the highest HOUSES quartile (Q4), lower HOUSES groups showed significantly higher odds of non-adherence: Q3 OR=1.07 (95% CI=1.03, 1.10), Q2 OR=1.16; (95% CI=1.12, 1.20), and Q1 OR=1.36 (95% CI=1.31, 1.41). Conclusions: A clinically meaningful association between the HOUSES index and cancer screening adherence was observed. A lower HOUSES index was associated with higher odds of non-adherence for both breast and cervical cancer screening, even after accounting for neighborhood-level risk, age, and comorbidities. Incorporating HOUSES into EHRs can be a practical “screening-for-screening” tool that enables close monitoring of higher-risk patients without additional burden of surveys. Citation Format: Eunice Y. Park, Madison Beenken, Dave Watson, Chung Il Wi, Tufia Haddad, Gladys Asiedu, Karla BALLMAN, James R. Cerhan, Carolyn Flock, Brian Lynch, Folakemi T. Odedina, Scott H. Okuno, Young J Juhn, . HOUSES as a screening tool for cancer screening: Patient-level housing-based socioeconomic status and breast and cervical cancer screening adherence [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7599.

Introduction Burnout among healthcare professionals remains a critical public health issue linked to impaired cognition, emotional exhaustion and diminished clinical performance. Structured breathing practices have demonstrated promise in improving autonomic regulation and cerebral oxygenation, yet their feasibility, acceptability and implementation in real-world healthcare settings remain underexplored. Objectives This single-arm pilot feasibility trial aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and implementation appropriateness of a structured breathing-based intervention for healthcare professionals across community-based Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites. Secondary objectives include assessing usability and engagement with the mobile breathing platform, while exploratory analyses will describe magnitude of variability and feasibility of collecting psychological and cerebral haemodynamic measures. This study will commence in November 2025 and is expected to be completed by June 2026. Methods and analysis A total of 40 clinicians (MD/DO/MBBS/PA) and nurses reporting moderate or greater burnout will be enrolled across four MCHS sites. Participants will complete a 4-month structured breathing programme delivered primarily online, supported by a mobile application for practice tracking. Assessments will occur at baseline, 2 months and 4 months, with functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) measures of cerebral oxygenation collected at baseline and 4 months in a population subset. Primary outcomes include (1) recruitment yield, retention and adherence rates; (2) acceptability and participant satisfaction (survey and qualitative feedback); and (3) implementation appropriateness measured by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). Secondary outcomes include digital engagement and usability through mobile analytics and the System Usability Scale. Exploratory outcomes are psychological indicators (burnout, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, sleep, fatigue, professional fulfilment and resilience) and physiological endpoints (fNIRS). Analyses will be descriptive, summarising feasibility metrics with 95% CIs. Progression criteria (recruitment≥75%, retention≥80%, adherence≥70%, AIM/IAM/FIM≥4.0) will determine readiness for a definitive hybrid effectiveness–implementation trial. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB # 25-009320). All participants will provide informed consent. Study procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity and participant safety. Data will be securely stored in REDCap and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conference Trial registration number NCT07218458 .

Abstract Introduction Burnout among healthcare professionals remains a critical public health issue linked to impaired cognition, emotional exhaustion, and diminished clinical performance. Structured breathing practices have demonstrated promise in improving autonomic regulation and cerebral oxygenation, yet their feasibility and acceptability in real-world healthcare settings remain underexplored. Objectives This single-arm pilot feasibility trial aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and implementation appropriateness of a structured breathing-based intervention for healthcare professionals across community-based Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites. Secondary objectives include assessing usability and engagement with the mobile breathing platform, while exploratory analyses will examine preliminary signals of change in psychological well-being and cerebral hemodynamics. Methods and Analysis A total of 40 physicians and nurses reporting moderate or greater burnout will be enrolled across four MCHS sites. Participants will complete a four-month structured breathing program delivered primarily online, supported by a mobile application for practice tracking. Assessments will occur at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months, with optional functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) measures of cerebral oxygenation collected at baseline and 4 months in a subset. Primary outcomes include (1) recruitment yield, retention, and adherence rates; (2) acceptability and participant satisfaction (survey and qualitative feedback); and (3) implementation appropriateness measured by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). Secondary outcomes assess digital engagement and usability through mobile analytics and the System Usability Scale (SUS). Exploratory outcomes evaluate psychological indicators—burnout, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, sleep, fatigue, professional fulfillment, and resilience—and physiological endpoints (fNIRS). Analyses will be descriptive, summarizing feasibility metrics with 95% confidence intervals. Progression criteria (recruitment ≥75%, retention ≥80%, adherence ≥70%, AIM/IAM/FIM ≥4.0) will determine readiness for a definitive hybrid effectiveness–implementation trial. Ethics and Dissemination The study is approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB # 25-009320). All participants will provide informed consent. Study procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity, and participant safety. Data will be securely stored in REDCap and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conference ClinicalTrials.gov ID The study has been prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT07218458 ). Strengths and Limitations Evaluates a structured breathing-based intervention using both subjective and objective indicators of feasibility, including recruitment, retention, adherence, and implementation appropriateness. Integrates mobile application analytics with standardized implementation measures (AIM, IAM, FIM) to capture digital engagement and real-world usability. Incorporates functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to explore physiological mechanisms underlying burnout recovery, linking cerebral oxygenation to behavioral outcomes. Conducted across diverse community-based Mayo Clinic Health System sites, enhancing ecological validity and relevance to decentralized clinical settings. Limitations include the single-arm, region-restricted design, modest sample size, and reliance on volunteer participants, which constrain generalizability and preclude causal inference; exploratory outcomes are intended to guide future trial refinement.

In 2023, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, cared for over 20,000 patients with hematologic malignancies, roughly 42% of whom were rural. Patients residing in rural areas can face challenges in access to care, financial and time burdens due to treatment-related travel, and limited opportunities to participate in clinical trials. In 2021, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society launched its IMPACT (Influential Medicine Providing Access to Clinical Trials) grant with Mayo Clinic being among its first recipients. The program provides funding to major cancer centers, in partnership with local community oncology centers, to help increase participation of patients traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials, including those who are rural, minority and/or economically disadvantaged. The award allowed significant changes to be made to clinical trial selection and facilitation models increasing access to trials within the rural setting and reducing the socioeconomic barriers noted above. This program included Rochester (IMPACT Hub) and Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites in Albert Lea, MN (65 miles to Hub), Eau Claire, WI (96 miles to hub), La Crosse, WI (73 miles to Hub), and Mankato, MN (84 miles to Hub). Methods: Two models were deployed; the full activation model where clinical trials were fully opened at MCHS sites, and the hybrid model where clinical trial participants are consented at the Hub and portions of participant care are conducted at MCHS sites. Initial barriers included limitations in clinical trials support staff, insufficient specimen processing equipment, medication storage and shipping limitations, MCHS catchment population unalignment with the Hub trials portfolio, and reduced bandwidth of providers due to patient care responsibilities. To address barriers to trial conduct, community center site champions were identified to streamline trial review and increase collaboration to better define site catchment areas, trial constraints, and site needs. A feasibility specialist was hired to support the program in trial design/implementation, barrier tracking, and to serve as a liaison between community site providers, study staff, and the program. Results: Since 2021, 20 clinical studies including 14 interventional treatment trials have been activated demonstrating 108 total patients accrued with 42 interventional accruals; 5 within the full activation model (13 accruals) and 15 in the hybrid model (29 accruals). Patients showed an average of 216 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $142/trip based on the 2023 IRS mileage rate of $0.655/mile to the hub location. Nine of those patients traveled over 260 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $170/visit to access clinical trials. Under the hybrid model, 8 patients transitioned portions of their care to their home city resulting in reduction of an average of 155 miles/visit, and 7 patients were able to reduce their travel time an average of 216 miles/visit. By estimating at least 10 study visits, the travel burden was reduced by 2,160 miles (4320 driving hours) and $1,420 in driving costs alone for participants. Using participant averages the 108 patients would spend a total of $15,336 in travel costs for just the initial visit, but when factoring in the 10-visit estimate, travel reduction could result in a net savings of $153,360. Based on travel data, it is estimated 11 of these patients would have required overnight accommodation using an average of $149/night hotel stay, a savings of $1,490/patient is estimated for the lifecycle of trial participation or $16,390 for the 11-patient cohort requiring accommodation. These results do not include travel companion and time off work costs. Efforts have been made to further develop the full activation model and 5 clinical trials are in activation. Data gathered from the program is being used to design strategies to reduce the administrative burden of clinical trial participation for community providers and launch screening programs. Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic LLS IMPACT program has demonstrated success in addressing barriers to opening clinical trials in the community-center setting and reduced the travel burden and financial impact to clinical trial participation in a cohort of trial participants. Centralized hub support of study activation and conduct and decentralized care to support treatment of patients in proximity of their home can be extended to other hospital systems and settings.

Abstract Background: Frailty assessment has often been performed only at baseline in cohort studies. Little is known regarding factors associated with changes in frailty indices over follow up in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Between 11/2008 - 8/2012, 142 community-dwelling adults ≥65 years of age with prior history of CAD (angina or revascularization) participated in a study of frailty assessment at Mayo Clinic Health System in La Crosse, WI. A sample of participants (n=45) were included for frailty re-assessment using the Fried frailty criteria approximately 5 years after their baseline measures. Frailty classification was based on absence of deficits (non-frail), 1-2 deficits (intermediately frail), or 3 or more deficits (frail). Factors associated with a change in frailty indices were studied. Results: There were 45 patients that had a second assessment of frailty indices. At baseline, 24 patients (60%) were not frail while 16 patients (40%) had at least 1 frail feature. At follow up, 20 patients (50%) were not frail while 20 patients (50%) had a frail feature. Those improving were more often being married, had prior revascularization, and were without angina. Interval development of slower gait speed (r = 0.46; p=0.004) and decreased grip strength (r = -0.39; p = 0.01) were associated with worsening frailty. Conclusions: Older adults with CAD are not often frail by standard criteria; however, incident deficits develop during long term follow-up. Spousal support, absence of angina, and change in functional indices are less often associated with frailty features.

Background There are limited data on outcomes for patients with peripheral artery disease undergoing endovascular revascularization by multi-disciplinary teams in a community hospital setting. Methods From January 2015 through December 2015, we assembled a multi-disciplinary program comprised of cardiologists, surgeons, radiologists, nurses, and administrative staff for managing patients with peripheral artery disease undergoing endovascular revascularization. Demographic, procedural, and outcomes data were collected with use of a template from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermittent claudication and critical limb ischemia. We used Kaplan–Meier methods to estimate the rate of overall survival and freedom from rehospitalization between groups. Results After excluding patients with acute limb ischemia ( n = 5), peripheral intervention to the upper extremity ( n = 6), or abdominal aorta ( n = 11), there were 82 patients in the study cohort; 45 had intermittent claudication and 37 had critical limb ischemia. Baseline and procedural characteristics were similar between groups, although critical limb ischemia patients were more likely to have hyperlipidemia (75.7% vs. 53.3%, P = .42). Procedural success was achieved in 91.3% of cases. Actionable access site bleeding occurred in 2.4% of patients. High rates of aspirin (91.5%) and statin (87.8%) were noted at discharge. After two years of post endovascular revascularization, survival was 57.5% for critical limb ischemia patients and 94.4% for intermittent claudication patients ( P < .001). Freedom from rehospitalization was 32.7% for critical limb ischemia patients and 83.5% for intermittent claudication patients ( P < .001). Conclusions We found that favorable outcomes may be achieved with a multi-disciplinary peripheral artery disease program at community hospitals. The incorporation of quality improvement practices may further help to develop standardized and regionalized approaches to care delivery for patients with peripheral artery disease.