National Cancer Institute

Applied Cancer Research Branch


Cancer Control and Population Sciences Home

Behavioral Research Program Home

Applied Cancer Screening Research Branch Home

In this Section:
Staff contact list
Priority Areas for Applied Cancer Screening Research


Need Help? Contact us by phone (1-800-422-6237), Web, or e-mail

Table 2. Focused Statements



(Note: Ten miscellaneous statements that did not fit a specific cluster area are not displayed here.)

Following are focused statements generated in response to the following statement, "in order to address its mission, one specific research area and/or topic I think the ACSRB should focus on over the next 3 years is…."

# Statement
1. Encourage innovative qualitative approaches to understanding barriers to screening.
2. Examine effects of screening with and without false positive results on worry/anxiety about cancer.
3. Encourage more small-scale preliminary research projects.
4. Understand ecological influences on cancer screening behavior.
5. Support provider studies of decision making about colorectal cancer screening options.
6. Encourage integration of different theoretical perspectives into intervention development.
7. Develop and test cancer risk communication messages across different ethnic/minority and cultural groups.
8. Develop and test gender specific messages for colorectal cancer screening.
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.
11. Develop outreach strategies that respond to underserved populations in rural areas.
12. Research the relative effectiveness of different theories in increasing prevention/screening activities.
14. Consider interventions addressing multiple behavioral concerns, not just screening.
15. Increase research on the most effective educational approaches for low-literacy individuals.
16. Develop and test strategies to promote shared decision making to increase cancer screening.
17. Consider the difference between screening in the classic sense and case-finding.
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.
20. Conduct cost-utility studies for new colorectal cancer screening tests on the horizon (e.g. virtual colonoscopy).
22. Encourage replication studies with different populations so that they can be evaluated for best practices model.
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.
26. Evaluate how to link national and state data on screening of cancer incidence and outcomes for those areas.
27. Identify impact of false positive cancer screening tests on future screening behavior.
29. Consider quantifying the potential impact of directing efforts at particular populations via simulation modeling.
30. Assess the relative value of factors that enable provider and patient screening behaviors in practice settings (particularly multiple screens).
31. Test strategies for increasing patient-provider communication regarding screening.
32. Examine predictors of multiple screening behaviors simultaneously to determine how behaviors cluster.
33. Support interventions for minority groups that focus on the relation of HPV and cervical cancer.
34. Examine the issue of informed consent for screening.
35. Focus research on the translation of proven screening programs into actual clinical practice.
36. Examine patient decision making and preferences for different colorectal cancer screening tests.
37. Develop and test strategies for reaching the hard-core screening.
38. Examine the policy issues related to genetic screening for cancer.
39. Assess patient and provider decision making when screening recommendations are uncertain (e.g., PSA testing).
40. Study community level predictors of cancer screening.
41. Test interventions to eliminate socioeconomic disparities in cancer screening.
43. Develop a balanced prostate cancer screening message and determine effective ways to disseminate it.
44. Increase capacity of state and local health departments in the area of HPV/cervical cancer prevention.
45. Determine how to integrate cancer preventive service delivery in the midst of the competing opportunities of the primary care setting.
46. Explore the impact of social support on screening behaviors.
48. Describe PSA screening practices among physicians.
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.
51. Reduce disparities with respect to initial access to screening and abnormal follow-up in key cancer areas.
52. Support basic behavioral (pre-intervention, "fundamental") research on the role of culture and screening behavior.
53. Develop capacity building strategies for endoscopic colorectal cancer.
54. Evaluate and test colorectal risk communications via multi-media methods.
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.
57. Encourage development of theory relating macro levels of influence to individual screening behavior.
58. Identify practices most able to adopt innovations in cancer prevention.
59. Describe the actual practices in HMOs to promote screening.
60. Test the feasibility of using new media technologies to educate underserved/poor regarding cancer screening.
61. Support designs to test the aggregate, as well as the independent effects of multi-strategy interventions.
62. Identify "pathways" to early detection.
63. Study cost effectiveness of screening interventions.
64. Test strategies to improve follow-up of abnormal screening test results.
65. Investigate similarities/differences in barriers to obtaining various cancer screening tests in different populations.
66. Expand behavioral research in the area of screening for genetic risk for cancer.
67. Determine how risk assessment should be incorporated into screening.
68. Assess the impact of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000.
69. Examine information systems that facilitate transfer of screening guidelines to clinicians.
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.
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.
76. Encourage research on the cultural appropriateness of behavioral theories used to explain screening and inform interventions.
77. Develop and test alternatives to the traditional experimental-control approach for evaluation of community-based studies.
78. Evaluate the effectiveness and costs of packaging (all) screening in the primary care setting.
79. Support educational interventions regarding the role of HPV in cervical cancer.
80. Study the importance of context especially among the hard to reach subpopulations and those who never screen.
81. Examine cost effectiveness of various early detection formats.
82. Support application of current successful models of intention to treat designs for cancer screening.
83. Collect up to date data on cancer screening access among rural residents.
84. Assess the impact of different managed care settings on screening practices.
85. Establish consensus on appropriate outcome measures for behavioral interventions.
86. Diversify intervention research geographically.
87. Assess policy relevant to diagnostic and treatment service provisions in population screening programs.
88. Identify ways to package cancer screening with other preventive services.
89. Examine the feasibility of "low tech" screening for developing countries and underserved areas of the US.

Back

 

Search | Help | Contact Us | Accessibility | Privacy Policy

DCCPSNational Cancer Institute Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health USA.gov

 
ACSRB home ACSRB home DCCPS home