Reflections on programs designed to reduce cancer disparities

Haynes, Michelle

doi:10.1002/cncr.22163

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Eighteen such networks were funded and included national networks that focused on Appalachian residents and on each of the major racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians/Alaska Natives, and Asians and Pacific Islanders), as well as local and regional networks. 6–8 Being funded as cooperative agreements (U01 grants) rather than R01 grants fostered collaboration with these communities; they became partners in cancer awareness, research, and training, rather than being the objects of research. Over a 5-year period, these SPNs catalyzed or conducted greater than 1000 cancer awareness activities; trained greater than 2000 community lay health workers; formulated greater than 300 formal community partnerships through signed Memoranda of Understanding; trained greater than 150 minority researchers; produced greater than 290 peer-reviewed scientific publications; and leveraged the NCI’s Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities funding by obtaining in excess of $20.5 million from additional sources for training, cancer awareness, and research activities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parallels between the development of therapeutic drugs and cancer health disparity programs

Chu

Chen

Dignan

et al. 2008

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND There are analogies between the development of therapeutic drugs for cancer and the development of interventions for reducing cancer health disparities. In both cases, it can take between 12 and 15 years for the benefits to become apparent. METHODS The initial preclinical phase of drug development is analogous to the development of community partnerships and helping the community learn about cancer. The preclinical phase of in vitro and in vivo testing is analogous to identifying the disparities in the community. Then clinical testing begins with phase 1, toxicity, and dose-establishing studies. Analogously, community-based participatory research is used to develop disparities–reducing interventions (DRIs) within the community. RESULTS The phase 2 clinical studies to determine whether the drug has activity are analogous to the DRI being implemented in the community to determine whether it can cause behavioral changes that will reduce cancer health disparities. If a drug passes phase 1 and 2 studies, phase 3 clinical trials are initiated. These are controlled studies to examine the efficacy of the drug. The similar activity for disparities research is to determine whether the DRI is better than the current standard/usual practice in controlled trials. If the drug is beneficial, the final phase is the dissemination and adoption of the drug. Analogously in disparities, if the DRI is beneficial, it is disseminated and is culturally adapted to other racial/ethnic groups and finally adopted as standard practice. CONCLUSIONS The process of creating an effective DRI can be envisioned to have 4 stages, which can be used to aid in measuring the progress being made in reducing cancer health disparities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%