Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27797013

RESUMEN

Building research infrastructure capacity to address clinical and translational gaps has been a focus of funding agencies and foundations. Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards, Research Centers in Minority Institutions Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research (RCTR), and the Institutional Development Award Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Research funded by the US government to fund clinical translational research programs have existed for over a decade to address racial and ethnic health disparities across the USA. While the impact on the nation's health cannot be made in a short period, assessment of a program's impact could be a litmus test to gauge its effectiveness at the institution and communities. We report the success of a Pilot Project Program in the University of Hawaii RCTR Award in advancing careers of emerging investigators and community collaborators. Our findings demonstrated that the investment has a far-reaching impact on engagement with community-based research collaborators, career advancement of health disparity investigators, and favorable impacts on health policy.

2.
Rev Recent Clin Trials ; 10(3): 187-93, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26435288

RESUMEN

There were significant recruitment challenges specific to the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial. Large numbers of participants were to be randomized from ten catchment areas nationwide within time and budgetary constraints. The eligible population was elderly and had to meet health and behavioral thresholds. Informed consent was required to participate and be randomized to screening for three cancers at periodic clinic visits or to a usual care arm that included no clinical visits. Consenting required special efforts to fully explain the trial and its potential scientific benefit to future patients with potentially no benefits but possible harms to PLCO participants. Participation would include continued follow-up for at least 13 years after randomization. Strong collaborative investments were required by the NCI and screening centers (SCs) to assure timely recruitment and appropriate racial participation. A trial-wide pilot phase tested recruitment and protocol follow through at SCs and produced a vanguard population of 11,406 participants. NCI announced the trial nationally in advance of the pilot and followed with an even more intense collaborative role with SCs for the main phase to facilitate trial-wide efficient and timely recruitment. Special efforts to enhance recruitment in the main phase included centralized and local monitoring of progress, cross-linking SCs to share experiences in problem solving, centralized training, substantial additional funding dedicated to recruitment and retention, including specialized programs for minority recruitment, obtaining national endorsement by the American Cancer Society, launching satellite recruitment and screening centers, including minority focused satellites, and adding a new SC dedicated to minority recruitment.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Grupos Raciales/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/etnología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/etnología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo/organización & administración , Grupos Minoritarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , Innovación Organizacional , Neoplasias Ováricas/etnología , Neoplasias Ováricas/prevención & control , Selección de Paciente , Proyectos Piloto , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Neoplasias de la Próstata/etnología , Neoplasias de la Próstata/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estados Unidos
3.
Rev Recent Clin Trials ; 10(3): 200-5, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26238207

RESUMEN

The most rigorous and accurate approach to evaluating clinical events in cancer screening studies is to use data obtained through medical record abstraction (MRA). Although MRA is complex, the particulars of the procedure-such as the specific training and quality assurance processes, challenges of implementation, and other factors that influence the quality of abstraction--are usually not described in reports of studies that employed the technique. In this paper, we present the details of MRA activities used in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, which used MRA to determine primary and secondary outcomes and collect data on other clinical events. We describe triggers of the MRA cycle and the specific tasks that were part of the abstraction process. We also discuss training and certification of abstracting staff, and technical methods and communication procedures used for data quality assurance. We include discussion of challenges faced and lessons learned.


Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Almacenamiento y Recuperación de la Información/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistemas de Registros Médicos Computarizados/estadística & datos numéricos , Registros Médicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo/organización & administración , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , Neoplasias/patología , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estados Unidos
4.
Rev Recent Clin Trials ; 10(3): 181-6, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26238208

RESUMEN

Biomedical research cannot succeed without funding, knowledgeable staff, and appropriate infrastructure. There are however equally important but intangible factors that are rarely considered in planning large multidisciplinary endeavors or evaluating their success. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial required extensive collaborations between individuals from many fields, including clinicians, clinical trialists, and administrators; it also addressed questions across the spectrum of cancer prevention and control. In this manuscript, we examine the experiences and opinions of trial staff regarding the building of successful relationships in PLCO. We summarize, in narrative form, data collected using open-ended questionnaires that were administered to the National Cancer Institute project officers, coordinating center staff, screening center principal investigators, and screening center coordinators in 2015, about 3 years after publication of the final primary trial manuscript. Trust, respect, listening to others, and in-person interaction were frequently mentioned as crucial to building successful relationships.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Ováricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/prevención & control , Conducta Cooperativa , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Masculino , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , Innovación Organizacional , Neoplasias Ováricas/prevención & control , Selección de Paciente , Neoplasias de la Próstata/prevención & control , Control de Calidad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA