Statements generated during the brainstorming session represented a broad range of issues, which were then grouped into finite categories called priority areas. Following are the initial statements subsequently categorized into the 10 priority areas - communication, cost effectiveness, determinants, decision making, disparities, genetic/risk, health services, methodology, policy and theory.
| Communication |
| 7. |
Develop and test cancer risk communication messages across different ethnic/minority cultural groups. |
| 8. |
Develop and test gender specific messages for colorectal cancer screening. |
| 31. |
Test strategies for increasing patient-provider communication regarding screening. |
| 43. |
Develop a balanced prostate cancer screening message and determine effective ways to disseminate it. |
| 54. |
Evaluate and test colorectal risk communications via multi-media methods. |
| 79. |
Support educational interventions regarding the role of HPV in cervical cancer. |
Cost Effectiveness |
| 20. |
Conduct cost-utility studies for new colorectal cancer screening tests on the horizon (e.g. virtual colonoscopy). |
| 63. |
Study cost effectiveness of screening interventions. |
| 78. |
Evaluate the effectiveness and costs of packaging (all) screening in the primary care setting. |
| 81. |
Examine cost effectiveness of various early detection formats. |
Decision Making |
| 5. |
Support provider studies of decision making about colorectal cancer screening options. |
| 16. |
Develop and test strategies to promote shared decision making to increase cancer screening. |
| 18. |
Encourage research on decision making strategies in high risk families. |
| 19. |
Develop a team model approach for prostate cancer patients to facilitate treatment decisions over short and long run. |
| 34. |
Examine the issue of informed consent for screening. |
| 36. |
Examine patient decision making and preferences for different colorectal cancer screening tests. |
| 39. |
Assess patient and provider decision making when screening recommendations are uncertain (e.g., PSA testing). |
Determinants |
| 2. |
Examine effects of screening with and without false positive results on worry/anxiety about cancer. |
| 4. |
Understand ecological influences on cancer screening behavior. |
| 27. |
Identify impact of false positive cancer screening tests on future screening behavior. |
| 32. |
Examine predictors of multiple screening behaviors simultaneously to determine how behaviors cluster. |
| 40. |
Study community level predictors of cancer screening. |
| 46. |
Explore the impact of social support on screening behaviors. |
| 52. |
Support basic behavioral (pre-intervention, "fundamental") research on the role of culture and screening behavior. |
| 55. |
Support adoption of successful cancer screening intervention strategies for community based populations. |
| 56. |
Test the specific impact of tailored interventions in increasing cancer screening behavior. |
| 62. |
Identify "pathways" to early detection. |
| 64. |
Test strategies to improve follow-up of abnormal screening test results. |
| 73. |
Study influences on the receipt of repeat cancer screening. |
| 74. |
Understand the role of fear as a barrier to screening, and develop strategies to help people overcome it. |
Disparities |
| 11. |
Develop outreach strategies that respond to underserved populations in rural areas. |
| 15. |
Increase research on the most effective educational approaches for low-literacy individuals. |
| 23. |
Explore beyond race/ethnicity on the major cultural constructs that may be associated with screening. |
| 25. |
Explore the extent to which "trust" is an issue with various ethnic populations. |
| 33. |
Support interventions for minority groups that focus on the relation of HPV and cervical cancer. |
| 37. |
Develop and test strategies for reaching the hard core screening non-participant. |
| 41. |
Test interventions to eliminate socioeconomic disparities in cancer screening. |
| 51. |
Reduce disparities with respect to initial access to screening and abnormal follow-up in key cancer areas. |
| 60. |
Test the feasibility of using new media technologies to educate underserved/poor regarding cancer screening. |
| 65. |
Investigate similarities/differences in barriers to obtaining various cancer screening tests in different populations. |
| 76. |
Encourage research on the cultural appropriateness of behavioral theories used to explain screening and inform interventions. |
| 80. |
Study the importance of context especially among the hard to reach subpopulations and those who never screen. |
| 83. |
Collect up to date data on cancer screening access among rural residents. |
| 86. |
Diversify intervention research geographically. |
| 89. |
Examine the feasibility of "low tech" screening for developing countries and underserved areas of the US. |
Genetic/Risk |
| 9. |
Anticipate the behavioral research issues likely to develop with the introduction of biomarker screening. |
| 10. |
Study how people interpret genetic risk information, especially absolute versus relative risk. |
| 38. |
Examine the policy issues related to genetic screening for cancer. |
| 49. |
Examine psychosocial and other screening issues in first-degree relatives of cancer survivors. |
| 50. |
Evaluate and assess the psychosocial and system effects of genetic testing for cancers among high and average risk people. |
| 66. |
Expand behavioral research in the area of screening for genetic risk for cancer. |
| 67. |
Determine how risk assessment should be incorporated into screening programs. |
Health Services |
| 14. |
Consider interventions addressing multiple behavioral concerns, not just screening. |
| 30. |
Assess the relative value of factors that enable provider and patient screening behaviors in practice settings (particularly multiple screens). |
| 35. |
Focus research on the translation of proven screening programs into actual clinical practice. |
| 45. |
Determine how to integrate cancer preventive service delivery in the midst of the competing opportunities of the primary care setting. |
| 48. |
Describe PSA screening practices among physicians. |
| 53. |
Develop capacity building strategies for endoscopic colorectal cancer screening. |
| 58. |
Identify practices most able to adopt innovations in cancer prevention. |
| 59. |
Describe the actual practices in HMOs to promote screening. |
| 69. |
Examine information systems that facilitate transfer of screening guidelines to clinicians. |
| 84. |
Assess the impact of different managed care settings on screening practices. |
| 88. |
Identify ways to package cancer screening with other preventive services. |
Methodology |
| 1. |
Encourage innovative qualitative approaches to understanding barriers to screening. |
| 3. |
Encourage more small-scale preliminary research projects. |
| 17. |
Consider the difference between screening in the classic sense and case-finding. |
| 22. |
Encourage replication studies with different populations so that they can be evaluated for best practices model. |
| 26. |
Evaluate how to link national and state data on screening of cancer incidence and outcomes for those areas. |
| 29. |
Consider quantifying the potential impact of directing efforts at particular populations via simulation modeling. |
| 61. |
Support designs to test the aggregate, as well as the independent effects of multi-strategy interventions. |
| 70. |
Model screening prevalence needed to reduce breast, cervix and colorectal cancer mortality by 2005 and 2010. |
| 72. |
Encourage high quality reporting of published results, methods and outcomes, to create a coherent body of knowledge. |
| 77. |
Develop and test alternatives to the traditional experimental-control approach for evaluation of community-based studies. |
| 82. |
Support application of current successful models of intention to treat designs for cancer screening. |
| 85. |
Establish consensus on appropriate outcome measures for behavioral interventions. |
Policy |
| 68. |
Assess the impact of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000. |
| 87. |
Assess policy relevant to diagnostic and treatment service provisions in population screening programs. |
Theory |
| 6. |
Encourage integration of different theoretical perspectives into intervention development. |
| 12. |
Research the relative effectiveness of different theories in increasing prevention/screening activities. |
| 57. |
Encourage development of theory relating macro levels of influence to individual screening behavior. |
