A systematic review of community-based colorectal cancer screening randomized controlled trials with multi-ethnic groups

Background. The CDC estimates that 40% of adults 50 years of age or older do not receive time-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Sixty percent of colorectal cancer deaths could be prevented by regular screening of adults 50 years of age and older. Yet, in 2000 only 42.5% of adults age 50 or older in the U.S. had received recommended screening. Disparities by health care, nativity status, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity are evident. Disparities in minority, underserved populations prevent us from attaining Goal 2 of Healthy People 2010 to “eliminate health disparities.” This review focuses on community-based screening research among underserved populations that includes multiple ethnic groups for appropriate disparities analysis. There is a gap in the colorectal cancer screening literature describing the effectiveness of community-based randomized controlled trials. ^ Objective. To critically review the literature describing community-based colorectal cancer screening strategies that are randomized controlled trials, and that include multiple racial/ethnic groups. ^ Methods. The review includes a preliminary disparities analysis to assess whether interventions were appropriately targeted in communities to those groups experiencing the greatest health disparities. Review articles are from an original search using Ovid Medline and a cross-matching search in Pubmed, both from January 2001 to June 2009. The Ovid Medline literature review is divided into eight exclusionary stages, seven electronic, and the last stage consisting of final manual review. ^ Results. The final studies (n=15) are categorized into four categories: Patient mailings (n=3), Telephone outreach (n=3), Electronic/multimedia (n=4), and Counseling/community education (n=5). Of 15 studies, 11 (73%) demonstrated that screening rates increased for the intervention group compared to controls, including all studies (100%) from the Patient mailings and Telephone outreach groups, 4 of 5 (80%) Counseling/community education studies, and 1 of 4 (25%) Electronic/multimedia interventions. ^ Conclusions. Patient choice and tailoring education and/or messages to individuals have proven to be two important factors in improving colorectal cancer screening adherence rates. Technological strategies have not been overly successful with underserved populations in community-based trials. Based on limited findings to date, future community-based colorectal cancer screening trials should include diverse populations who are experiencing incidence, survival, mortality and screening disparities. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^