Estimating cancer screening indicators in the primary care setting.

The software "Profile: A Cancer Risk Profile of Your Patient Practice" was used to estimate cancer screening activities in a primary care practice. "Profile" is a public health tool that does not track the screening histories of individual patients, but rather, using a sampling strategy, provides estimates for the entire practice of the age and sex specific number of screening eligible patients, the number screened, and the number that should have been screened, based on National Cancer Institute/American Cancer Society (NCI/A CS) guidelines. This report describes "Profile," and the results it generated from a sample of medical records. Primary care providers who seek to integrate primary and secondary cancer prevention activities into their routine practices will find it useful to have an objective estimate of their current level of such activities.

Pediatric oncologists' assessment of oncology education in U.S. medical schools: Cancer Education Survey II.

The status of cancer education in U.S. medical schools was reassessed in the Cancer Education Survey II, which was initiated in 1989. One thousand and thirty-five cancer educators from 126 of the country's 128 medical schools participated, including 65 pediatric oncologists and 36 family physicians. All agreed that the most important aspects of cancer to teach medical students are early detection and cancer prevention; they considered less important electives in basic science, radiation therapy, and surgical oncology. The 101 pediatric oncologists and family physicians believed that more curriculum time should be devoted to cancer epidemiology, psychosocial aspects, and palliative care. Approximately one third of these 101 physicians also expressed the desire to have more teaching materials available in five general areas: patient education about pediatric cancer, nutrition, epidemiology, palliative care, and continuing care. Lay-language information about pediatric cancer, participation in clinical trials, and current cancer research is still needed.

Changing the cancer curriculum: a curriculum committee's response to the results of the AACE Cancer Education Survey II. Cancer Education Survey II: cancer education in United States medical schools.

The AACE Cancer Education Survey-II offers an unusual opportunity based on data from 125 medical schools and 1,035 experienced cancer educators to effect constructive change with regard to cancer education. The changes suggested include more coordination; integration; and a shift of emphasis to include more on topics of prevention, early diagnosis, tumor biology, rehabilitation, palliative care, and psychosocial issues. Ample opportunities, especially in the ambulatory care arena, exist at most medical schools, and there is a great deal of interest in improving the situation. This article reviews the factors contributing to resistance to change, the data on adult learning, and the major movements and dilemmas facing medical education today. It also discusses some of the external forces like the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and foundation support, which are being harnessed to effect change. Given these barriers, forces, and opportunities, the article ends with a possible action plan for an individual, an institution, and national bodies interested in cancer education. The knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes must be defined, taught effectively, and evaluated. It is an opportune time, armed with this useful data, to bring about change in how cancer subjects are taught. The ultimate goal is more knowledgeable and effective practitioners and scientists who can decrease the morbidity and mortality from cancer.

Cancer prevention education in United States medical schools. Cancer Education Survey II: cancer education in United States medical schools.

The Cancer Education Survey collected data from 126 of 128 US Medical Schools on the current status of cancer-related educational activities for undergraduate medical students. The study was conducted by a Supervisory Committee of the American Association for Cancer Education, with funding from the American Cancer Society. The survey obtained data concerning institutional characteristics in support of undergraduate medical student cancer education, ie, administrative structures, current cancer-related curricula, sources of financial support, and anticipated changes in these characteristics. Institutions were also queried on specific topics of cancer prevention, detection, and diagnosis that might be taught as identifiable areas of instruction for medical students. Three-fourths of the institutions had a lecture on the principles of cancer screening, and, among those, nearly three-fourths classified it as a part of a required course or rotation. Detection of common cancers is taught in virtually all institutions. The least likely cancer prevention lecture topics are related to prevention and cessation of smoking, a well-verified cancer risk. Also, no consistent pattern emerges that might indicate that association with a cancer center imparts to a medical school a greater emphasis on delivery of cancer prevention topics.

Survey design and observations relating to cancer education funding. Cancer Education Survey II: cancer education in United States medical schools (conducted by The American Association for Cancer Education with the support of the American Cancer Society).

A survey has been conducted of cancer education programs for medical students in United States medical schools by the American Association for Cancer Education with grant support from the Department of Detection and Treatment of the American Cancer Society (formerly the Professional Education Department). Two questionnaires were used, an Educational Resources Questionnaire (ERQ), which 126 of the 128 medical schools completed and returned, and a Faculty and Curriculum Questionnaire (FCQ), which was completed and returned by 1,035 faculty members who had been named as active in undergraduate medical student cancer education by respondents in each school who had been designated by the Dean's Office to complete the ERQ. Overall conclusions included: (1) increased coordination of cancer education activities is a major need in many schools; (2) there is widespread interest in the further development of cancer education objectives; (3) development of a national cancer education curriculum is needed; (4) there is interest in the development of improved instructional materials and methods; (5) development of evaluation methods is needed for cancer education programs; and (6) an ongoing funding process is needed to provide support for interdepartmental coordination of cancer education activities. Cancer prevention and detection topics were ranked above cancer treatment in plans for future curriculum emphasis. More detailed conclusions and recommendations are provided in this publication and three subsequent articles in this issue of the Journal of Cancer Education.

Instructional methods and the use of teaching resources in cancer education curricula. Cancer Education Survey II: cancer education in United States medical schools.

The findings on cancer teaching methodology presented in this abstract come from an American Association for Cancer Education (AACE)/American Cancer Society-sponsored survey of American allopathic medical schools in 1989 and 1990 to determine how and how well cancer is presented in the medical school curriculum. Responses were received from 126 institutional and approximately 1,000 faculty respondents. Approximately one-third (368) of faculty respondents indicated the use of specific learning objectives; utilization does vary across disciplines. The lecture remains the dominant form of instructional method. Computers were reported as an instructional modality by only 16% of the faculty respondents. Prepared audiovisual instructional materials appeared to be widely utilized. Use varied from 86% for 35mm slides to 11% for video discs. Faculty favored the development of new teaching materials for ten topic areas ranging from approximately 40% for early detection and prevention to a low of approximately 25% for rehabilitation and continuing care. The survey identified an underutilization of existing outpatient facilities and tumor registries for cancer teaching purposes. The findings give rise to questions concerning the appropriateness of the match between specific instructional goals and the teaching methods employed. Eight recommendations designed to strengthen cancer training are made.

Nonlinguistic Knowledge, Hemispheric Laterality, and the Conservation of Inequality in Nonconserving Children.

Nonconserving children may fail to conserve because of difficulties in verbally expressing nonlinguistic knowledge of equivalence relationships. This may be partly due to an inability of the right hemisphere, which mediates the performance of internal reversals and conservation, to communicate with the speaking left hemisphere because of the immaturity of the corpus callosum. This relationship presumably results in the asymmetrical activation of the left hemisphere when verbal responses are required. To assess the possibility that nonconservers have an awareness of the reversibility of these operations, three groups of nonconserving children (N = 42) were either asked which of two containers (one of which appeared to contain more liquid, but had previously been shown to contain less) had more in it, or which (pretending they were very thirsty and it was their favorite drink) they would prefer. To assess whether nonconservers respond primarily with left hemisphere activation, patterns of lateral eye movement in response to verbal-analytic or spatial-emotional stimuli were obtained in a fourth group (N = 37). Both hypotheses were supported.

Antigenic characterization of a new gibbon ape leukemia virus isolate: seroepidemiologic assessment of an outbreak of gibbon leukemia.

A type-C virus recently isolated from a leukemic gibbon in a colony located on Hall's Island, Bermuda, was characterized with respect to the antigenic properties of its gag and env gene-coded proteins. This virus, designated GaLV-H, was found to be closely related immunologically to type-C viruses previously isolated from gibbons (GaLV-SF, GaLV-SEATO, GaLV-Br) and from woolly monkey (SSAV). However, GaLV-H was readily differentiated from these isolates in a radioimmunoassay for its env gene product, gp70. Seroepidemiology established that GaLV-H was horizontally transmitted among gibbons within the colony. There was no evidence of exposure leading to an immune response to the virus or viral antigenemia in humans working in association with these animals.