 |

5 A Day and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month
September is National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month and National 5 A Day for
Better Health Month. Go online to learn more about these programs and related
awareness activities. For more information on prostate cancer, visit
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/prostate. For more information on the
national 5 A Day for Better Health Program, visit
http://5aday.gov/.
Communication Research Centers Discuss Progress
The third meeting of NCI's Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communication
Research (CECCR) investigators took place September 2-3 in Madison, Wis.,
hosted by members of the University of Wisconsin, Madison CECCR and NCI's
Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch. Center researchers, NCI
staff, and expert consultants discussed research progress and methodological
issues. Trans-center working groups also discussed opportunities surrounding
collaboration, evaluation, dissemination, and management. Funded in 2003, the
P50 CECCR initiative awarded grants to four centers to develop new theories,
methods, and interventions for cancer communication to narrow the gap between
discovery and application, while focusing efforts on diverse or underserved
populations. Led by Dr. David H. Gustafson, the University of Wisconsin, Madison
CECCR is exploring the attributes of a successful, interactive cancer
communication Web-based program and the impact such a program can have on
patient and caregiver quality of life, as well as caregiver burden. The
University of Michigan center, headed by Dr. Victor Strecher, is developing an efficient model for generating tailored health behavior interventions,
as well as how these messages can be used in prevention and control materials
and how different interventions impact behavior. Dr. Robert Hornik leads the
Effects of Public Information on Cancer Center at the University of
Pennsylvania in its research to investigate the various impacts that
information seeking, advertising messages, family history, and targeted cancer
information have on health behavior change. The center at St. Louis University,
led by Dr. Matthew Kreuter, aims to enhance cancer communications to African
American audiences by making messages compatible with cultural beliefs, norms,
and values. The center mixes disciplinary strengths in anthropology,
epistemology, and journalism to investigate the effectiveness of narrative
story telling and targeted messaging within specialized media. In April 2005,
CECCR investigators will meet in St. Louis, Mo. For more information on the
centers and their research, visit
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/hcirb/ceccr/.
New Web Site Provides Information on Radiation Exposure
The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) recently launched a new Web
site for physicians and other health professionals:
www.iodine131.org. The site
provides scientific information about radiation exposure from iodine 131
(I-131) and is a gateway to additional information and resources about I-131
radiation exposure and related health effects. NCI served on the ACPM I-131
Education Advisory Committee and provided expert content review of the Web site
and other materials. To learn more about NCI's initiatives related to radiation
exposure due to nuclear testing fallout, go to www.cancer.gov/i131.
Randomized Control Trials in Evaluation Lecture
On Tuesday, September 14, Dr. Michael Quinn Patton presented "The Debate about
Randomized Controls as the Gold Standard in Evaluation," reviewing the
strengths and weaknesses of randomized experiments in evaluation. Dr. Patton is
a nationally recognized expert in the field of utilization-focused evaluation,
and focused his lecture on how evaluation is practiced, understood, and
utilized to improve programming. He discussed how research and evaluation are
different and therefore need to be assessed using unique criteria. He argued
that considering randomized control trials (RCT) the gold standard for proving
effectiveness distorts the evaluation process itself and dictates that emphasis
be placed on adherence to RCT methodology rather than the methodology that is
best suited for answering the research questions. Dr. Patton continued by
discussing several alternatives to using RCT for evaluation, and provided
historical examples where other approaches have been successful in proving
effectiveness of programs and interventions. He concluded the lecture by
stating that the gold standard should be the method that is most appropriate,
not any one methodical orthodoxy or rigidity. An archive of Dr. Quinn-Patton's
talk can be viewed at http://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp?c=4.
|