Development and preliminary validation of the cancer family impact scale for colorectal cancer

This study aimed to develop and validate The Cancer Family Impact Scale (CFIS), an instrument for use in studies investigating relationships among family factors and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening when family history is a risk factor. We used existing data to develop the measure from 1,285 participants (637 families) across the United States who were in the Johns Hopkins Colon Cancer Genetic Testing study. Participants were 94% white with an average age of 50.1 years, and 60% were women. None had a personal CRC history, and eighty percent had 1 FDR with CRC and 20% had more than one FDR with CRC. The study had three aims: (1) to identify the latent factors underlying the CFIS via exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (2) to confirm the findings of the EFA via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (3) to assess the reliability of the scale via Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory analyses were performed on a split half of the sample, and the final model was confirmed on the other half. The EFA suggested the CFIS was an 18-item measure with 5 latent constructs: (1) NEGATIVE: negative effects of cancer on the family; (2) POSITIVE: positive effects of cancer on the family; (3) COMMUNICATE: how families communicate about cancer; (4) FLOW: how information about cancer is conveyed in families; and (5) NORM: how individuals react to family norms about cancer. CFA on the holdout sample showed the CFIS to have a reasonably good fit (Chi-square = 389.977, df = 122, RMSEA= 0.058 (.052-.065), CFI=.902, TLI=.877, GF1=.939). The overall reliability of the scale was α=0.65. The reliability of the subscales was: (1) NEGATIVE α = 0.682; (2) POSITIVE α = 0.686; (3) COMMUNICATE α = 0.723; (4) FLOW α = 0.467; and (5) NORM α = 0.732. ^ We concluded the CFIS to be a good measure with most fit levels over 0.90. The CFIS could be used to compare theoretically driven hypotheses about the pathways through which family factors could influence health behavior among unaffected individuals at risk due to family history, and also aid in the development and evaluation of cancer prevention interventions including a family component. ^

Understanding disparities in emergency department visits for asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic disorder in childhood, affecting an estimated 6.2 million children under 18 years (1). The purpose of this study was to look at individual- and community-level characteristics simultaneously to examine and explain the factors that contribute to the use of emergency department services by children 18 years old or less and to determine if there was an association between air quality and ED visits in the same population, from 2005-2007 in Houston/Harris County. Data were collected from the Houston Safety Net Hospital Emergency Department Use Study and the 2000 US Census. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models and mixed effects models were used to analyze data that was collected during the study period.^ There were 704,902 ED visits made by children 18 and younger, who were living in Houston from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007. Of those, 19,098 had a primary discharge diagnosis of asthma. Asthma ED visits varied by season, with proportions of ED visits for asthma highest from September-December. African-American children were 2.6 (95% CI, 2.43-2.66) times more likely to have an ED visit for asthma compared to White children. Poverty, single parent headed households, and younger age all a greater likelihood of having gone to the ED for asthma treatment. Compared to Whites living in lightly-monitored pollution areas, African-Americans and Hispanics living in heavily monitored areas were 1.15 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28) times more likely to have an ED visit for asthma.^ Race and poverty seem to account for a large portion of the disparities in ED use found among children. This was true even after accounting for multiple individual- and community-level variables. These results suggest that racial disparities in asthma continue to pose risks for African American children, and they point to the need for additional research into potential explanations and remedies. Programs to reduce inappropriate ED use must be sensitive to an array of complex socioeconomic issues within minority and income populations. ^