Nolan, Timiya S.

Abstract Introduction: COE has become the gold standard in addressing health disparities. COE’s value is emphasized by NIH and leading cancer-related organizations e.g., AACR. The Alliance for COE (The Alliance) mission is to advance the art, science, and impact of COE; promote community health and wellness; and reduce cancer burden and disparities. Methods: This abstract builds on the Alliance’s Science of Community Outreach and Engagement (SoCOE) Conference a NCI R13 funded series. SoCOE Conference is organized by 10 NCI-designated Cancer Centers to provide a platform for COE academic-clinical-policy-community stakeholders to share best practices for solution-focused community responsive cancer prevention, diagnostics, therapeutics and survivorship research and practice. Results: > 500 researchers, clinicians, policymakers, healthcare administrators, with >12% being survivors and/or advocates, participated in our SoCOE Conferences. The delegates’ recommendations are: Decentralize who/entities that hold all the power in science and clinical research (trials). Communities hold valuable, necessary wisdom and resources to inform and guide science Include multisectoral partners early and always Community capacity building and compensation with gratitude Mentoring of junior COE researchers, clinicians, policymakers, healthcare administrators, survivors and advocates with humility is a must Develop virtual communities to share best practices across cancer centers and within regions Develop working groups to identify and explore commonalities across COE work in rural/urban, diverse/homogenous spaces Publish Science of COE papers on various topics related to COE Frameworks and evidenced-solutions Provide community reports on best practice guide that can be widely available to be shared locally and in-person, and digitally Partner and learn from COE teams working with other cultural/ethnic groups Attend to, measure and remedy societal/social drivers of health disparities that mirror barriers to care, and research engagement and participation. Discussion: Informed by our community advisory boards and the findings for our SoCOE Conferences, we present the pillars of the Alliance to tackle population cancer burden and disparities: Training future COE leaders/advocates, Advocating for public health policies/guidelines, Increasing access to cancer prevention and care that will also increase access to studies, Engaging and partnering with multisectoral stakeholders and communities, Building community capacity, Advancing COE science through catchment-relevant research, and Leading bi-directional communication and information and resource sharing between catchment area communities and cancer centers. The expectation and impact of COE can only be achieved if COE teams are valued, supported cancer center members with community advisory boards and community as cancer centers’ priority population. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, CHARNITA ZEIGLER-JOHNSON, Hayley S. Thompson, Kim Rhoads, Nadine Barrett, Lisa Carter Bawa, Timiya S. Nolan, Monica Baskin, Vanessa B. Sheppard, Marvella E. Ford, Erica Phillips, Lorna H. McNeill, Folakemi T. Odedina. Advancing the science, practice and impact of COE [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 7577.

Community Outreach and Engagement (COE) ought to be prioritized, resourced, and supported to appropriately fulfill the Cures Act and tackle Catchment Community cancer burden and disparities. COE is not a person but the vision of community/public cancer prevention and control that surpasses both political and institutional leaders.

Abstract The requirement of community outreach and engagement (COE) as a major component of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant has had an enormous impact on the way NCI-designated cancer centers identify, investigate, and address the needs of their catchment area (CA) communities. Given the wide-ranging diversity of our nation, COE’s scope of work (SOW) is extremely demanding and complex. Yet, COE is often marginalized and viewed as void of scientific methods when, in fact, it requires specialized scientific knowledge and a broad range of proficiencies. Black COE scientific directors may be particularly attuned to this marginalization as they have often confronted workplace inequities that resemble the health inequities observed within their cancer center’s CA. Thus, Black COE leaders are uniquely positioned to offer insight on the past, present, and future of COE. Key areas discussed include the low involvement of minoritized group members and those with appropriate expertise in national COE leadership; the lack of established, consistent criteria for evaluation of COE components and qualifications of evaluators; the need for substantial financial investment in COE; potential misalignment of community priorities and cancer center objectives; professional development and growth of COE staff and leaders; the expanding scope of COE across their respective cancer centers and CAs; and the need for center-wide involvement in COE and an “all-hands-on-deck” approach. These areas warrant thoughtful dialogue as COE evolves, for the benefit and success of all COE leaders. However, this dialogue must include diverse voices representing similarly diverse stakeholders at every level.

Background Higher scores for the American Heart Association Life's Essential 8 (LE8) metrics, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, body mass index, physical activity, smoking, sleep, and diet, are associated with lower risk of chronic disease. Socioeconomic status (SES; employment, insurance, education, and income) is associated with LE8 scores, but there is limited understanding of potential differences by sex. This analysis quantifies the association of SES with LE8 for each sex, within Hispanic Americans, non‐Hispanic Asian Americans, non‐Hispanic Black Americans, and non‐Hispanic White Americans. Methods and Results Using cross‐sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, years 2011 to 2018, LE8 scores were calculated (range, 0–100). Age‐adjusted linear regression quantified the association of SES with LE8 score. The interaction of sex with SES in the association with LE8 score was assessed in each racial and ethnic group. The US population representatively weighted sample (13 529 observations) was aged ≥20 years (median, 48 years). The association of education and income with LE8 scores was higher in women compared with men for non‐Hispanic Black Americans and non‐Hispanic White Americans ( P for all interactions <0.05). Among non‐Hispanic Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans, the association of SES with LE8 was not different between men and women, and women had greater LE8 scores than men at all SES levels (eg, high school or less, some college, and college degree or more). Conclusions The factors that explain the sex differences among non‐Hispanic Black Americans and non‐Hispanic White Americans, but not non‐Hispanic Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans, are critical areas for further research to advance cardiovascular health equity.

Background Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with cardiovascular health (CVH). Potential differences by sex in this association remain incompletely understood in Black Americans, where SES disparities are posited to be partially responsible for cardiovascular inequities. The association of SES measures (income, education, occupation, and insurance) with CVH scores was examined in the Jackson Heart Study. Methods and Results American Heart Association CVH components (non–high‐density‐lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, diet, tobacco use, physical activity, sleep, glycemia, and body mass index) were scored cross‐sectionally at baseline (scale: 0–100). Differences in CVH and 95% CIs (Estimate, 95% CI) were calculated using linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, and discrimination. Heterogeneity by sex was assessed. Participants had a mean age of 54.8 years (SD 12.6 years), and 65% were women. Lower income, education, occupation (non‐management/professional versus management/professional occupations), and insurance status (uninsured, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, or Medicare versus private insurance) were associated with lower CVH scores (all P <0.01). There was heterogeneity by sex, with greater magnitude of associations of SES measures with CVH in women versus men. The lowest education level (<high school) versus highest (>high school) was associated with 8.8‐point lower (95% CI: −10.2 to −7.3) and 5.4‐point lower (95% CI: −7.2 to −3.6) CVH scores in women and men, respectively (interaction P =0.003). The lowest (<25 000) versus highest level of income (≥$75 000) was associated with a greater reduction in CVH scores in women than men (interaction P =0.1142). Conclusions Among Black Americans, measures of SES were associated with CVH, with a greater magnitude in women compared with men for education and income. Interventions aimed to address CVH through SES should consider the role of sex.

Background The American Heart Association's Life's Essential 8 (LE8) are 8 risk factors for cardiovascular disease, with poor attainment across all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Attainment is lowest among Americans of low socioeconomic status (SES). Evidence suggests the association of SES with LE8 may vary by race and ethnicity. Methods and Results The association of 4 SES categories (education, income‐to‐poverty line ratio, employment, insurance) with LE8 was computed in age‐adjusted linear regression models, with an interaction term for race and ethnicity, using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, years 2011 to 2018. The sample (n=13 529) had a median age of 48 years (51% female) with weighting to be representative of the US population. The magnitude of positive association of college education (relative to ≤high school) with LE8 was greater among non‐Hispanic White Americans (NHWA) compared with non‐Hispanic Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and non‐Hispanic Asian Americans (all interactions P <0.001). NHWA had a greater magnitude of positive association of income‐to‐poverty line ratio with LE8, compared with non‐Hispanic Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and non‐Hispanic Asian Americans (all interactions P <0.001). NHWA with Medicaid compared with private insurance had a greater magnitude of negative association with LE8 compared with non‐Hispanic Black Americans, non‐Hispanic Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans (all interactions P <0.01). NHWA unemployed due to disability or health condition (compared with employed) had a greater magnitude of negative association with LE8 than non‐Hispanic Black Americans, non‐Hispanic Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans (all interactions P <0.05). Conclusions The magnitude of association of SES with LE8 is greatest among NHWA. More research is needed on SES's role in LE8 attainment in minority group populations.