Supportive Relationships Mitigate the Effect of Cumulative Exposure to Adverse Childhood Experiences on Depression, Anxiety, Stress, and Suicide Considerations-The Arizona Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Declining adolescent mental health is a significant public health concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing and stay-at-home orders have led to missed social connections with peers and adults outside households, and this has increased the risk of mental health problems in children and adolescents, particularly those with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Studies have shown that strong interpersonal support improves adolescent mental health. We examined the association between ACEs and poor mental health (including stress, anxiety, and depression) and how the presence of interpersonal support from caring adults and friends and school connectedness can mitigate this relationship among adolescents in Arizona. This study analyzed data from the 2021 Arizona Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS; n = 1181), a population-based survey conducted biennially across the United States. The Arizona sample included high school students in grades 9-12 who were enrolled in public and charter schools. This study revealed that nearly three of four adolescents experienced an ACE, and one of five experienced ≥4 ACEs. Compared with adolescents who experienced zero ACEs, those with ≥4 ACEs experienced less interpersonal support from caring adults, friends, and school and more frequently reported poor mental health and suicidal thoughts. However, adolescents with interpersonal support consistently reported lower rates of mental health issues, even with exposure to multiple ACEs. Post-pandemic programs to improve social relationships with adults, peers, and schools are critical, especially for adolescents with multiple adversities.

Arizona Department of Health Prevention Services' Work to Advance Health Equity Starts With an Assessment of Its Own Organizational Culture.

OBJECTIVE: To identify skills, organizational practices, and infrastructure needed to address health equity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed an anonymous online staff survey to assess how to address health equity and policy implications and develop a baseline for future initiatives. We distributed invitations to all Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) Division of Prevention Services (DPS) state- and non-state-designated employees in February 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employee self-reported perceptions of how agency, division, and programs address health inequities; information about (1) organizational and individual traits needed to support our ability to implement effective health equity-focused work and (2) processes to enable improved organizational and workforce capacities; and implications for strategic planning. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent (N = 123) of eligible staff participated. Overall, we identified 21 of 28 organizational and 17 of 31 workforce capacities needing significant improvement. Organizational capacities were "Institutional commitment to address health inequities" (described using 6 elements), "Hiring to address health inequities" (2 elements), "Structure that supports true community partnerships" (3 elements), "Support staff to address health inequities" (4 elements), "Transparent and inclusive communication" (4 elements), "Community accessible data and planning" (1 element), and "Streamlined administrative process" (1 element). Workforce capacities were "Knowledge of public health framework" (4 elements), "Understand the social, environmental, and structural determinants of health" (1 element), "Community knowledge" (1 element), "Leadership" (4 elements), "Collaboration skills" (3 elements), "Community organizing" (3 elements), and "Problem-solving ability" (1 element). Using survey results, groups of staff identified change needed, specific actions, and training and communication to increase employee understanding. Proposed activities focused on data/evaluation, program planning/contracts, communications, personnel development, and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This survey allowed ADHS to establish a baseline of staff knowledge of the ADHS and DPS organizational commitment to address health inequities; results show us what areas to focus on to strengthen our capacity to achieve better outcomes; and improve health and wellness for all Arizonans.

Diving deeper into distress screening implementation in oncology care.

BACKGROUND: Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care.

Disparities in Psychosocial Distress Screening and Management of Lung and Ovarian Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Since 2016, the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) has required routine distress screening (DS) of cancer survivors treated in their accredited facilities to facilitate early identification of survivors with psychosocial concerns. Lung and ovarian cancer survivors have relatively low 5-year survival rates and may experience high levels of distress. We examined the extent to which ovarian and lung cancer survivors received CoC-mandated DS and whether DS disparities exist on the basis of diagnosis, sociodemographic factors, or facility geography (urban/rural). METHODS: This study included a quantitative review of DS documentation and follow-up services provided using existing electronic health records (EHRs). We worked with 21 CoC-accredited facilities across the United States and examined EHRs of 2,258 survivors from these facilities (1,618 lung cancer survivors and 640 ovarian cancer survivors) diagnosed in 2016 or 2017. RESULTS: Documentation of DS was found in half (54.8%) of the EHRs reviewed. Disparities existed across race/ethnicity, cancer type and stage, and facility characteristics. Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors were screened at lower percentages than other survivors. Patients with ovarian cancer, those diagnosed at earlier stages, and survivors in urban facilities had relatively low percentages of DS. Non-Hispanic Black survivors were more likely than non-Hispanic White survivors to decline further psychosocial services. CONCLUSION: Despite the mandate for routine DS in CoC-accredited oncology programs, gaps remain in how many and which survivors are screened for distress. Improvements in DS processes to enhance access to DS and appropriate psychosocial care could benefit cancer survivors. Collaboration with CoC during this study led to improvement of their processes for collecting DS data for measuring standard adherence.

Partnering with healthcare facilities to understand psychosocial distress screening practices among cancer survivors: pilot study implications for study design, recruitment, and data collection.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing distress screening (DS) of cancer patients to inform and promote uptake in cancer treatment facilities. We describe the recruitment and data collection challenges and recommendations for assessing DS in oncology treatment facilities. METHODS: We recruited CoC-accredited facilities and collected data from each facility's electronic health record (EHR). Collected data included cancer diagnosis and demographics, details on DS, and other relevant patient health data. Data were collected by external study staff who were given access to the facility's EHR system, or by facility staff working locally within their own EHR system. Analyses are based on a pilot study of 9 facilities. RESULTS: Challenges stemmed from being a multi-facility-based study and local institutional review board (IRB) approval, facility review and approval processes, and issues associated with EHR systems and the lack of DS data standards. Facilities that provided study staff remote-access took longer for recruitment; facilities that performed their own extraction/abstraction took longer to complete data collection. CONCLUSION: Examining DS practices and follow-up among cancer survivors necessitated recruiting and working directly with multiple healthcare systems and facilities. There were a number of lessons learned related to recruitment, enrollment, and data collection. Using the facilitators described in this manuscript offers increased potential for working successfully with various cancer centers and insight into partnering with facilities collecting non-standardized DS clinical data.

Trends in COVID-19 Incidence After Implementation of Mitigation Measures - Arizona, January 22-August 7, 2020.

Mitigating the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), requires individual, community, and state public health actions to prevent person-to-person transmission. Community mitigation measures can help slow the spread of COVID-19; these measures include wearing masks, social distancing, reducing the number and size of large gatherings, pausing operation of businesses where maintaining social distancing is challenging, working from or staying at home, and implementing certain workplace and educational institution controls (1-4). The Arizona Department of Health Services' (ADHS) recommendations for mitigating exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were informed by continual monitoring of patient demographics, SARS-CoV-2 community spread, and the pandemic's impacts on hospitals. To assess the effect of mitigation strategies in Arizona, the numbers of daily COVID-19 cases and 7-day moving averages during January 22-August 7, 2020, relative to implementation of enhanced community mitigation measures, were examined. The average number of daily cases increased approximately 151%, from 808 on June 1, 2020 to 2,026 on June 15, 2020 (after stay-at-home order lifted), necessitating increased preventive measures. On June 17, local officials began implementing and enforcing mask wearing (via county and city mandates),* affecting approximately 85% of the state population. Statewide mitigation measures included limitation of public events; closures of bars, gyms, movie theaters, and water parks; reduced restaurant dine-in capacity; and voluntary resident action to stay at home and wear masks (when and where not mandated). The number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona peaked during June 29-July 2, stabilized during July 3-July 12, and further declined by approximately 75% during July 13-August 7. Widespread implementation and enforcement of sustained community mitigation measures informed by state and local officials' continual data monitoring and collaboration can help prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and decrease the numbers of COVID-19 cases.

Pain Among Cancer Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is one of the most common symptoms that people with cancer experience. Identification of demographic, physiologic, and behavioral correlates of pain among cancer survivors could help identify subgroups most in need of pain management. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Cancer Survivorship Optional Module, which was completed by 18 states and territories, to describe demographic and physiologic characteristics of cancer survivors reporting physical pain caused by cancer or cancer treatment. Adjusted and unadjusted population-based estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Of 12,019 cancer survivor respondents, 9.5% reported current pain related to cancer or cancer treatment. Current pain differed significantly by sex, race/ethnicity, age, and cancer type. Current pain was reported most often among survivors with more than 3 chronic diseases (16.7%) compared with survivors with none (8.1%) or 1 or 2 (10.0%). Pain was higher among survivors reporting fair or poor general health (18.0%) than among survivors reporting otherwise, and higher among survivors reporting more than 14 days of poor physical health (16.6%) or poor mental health (14.8%) compared with less than 14 days (in the past 30 days). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that approximately 10% of cancer survivors in the United States are experiencing pain that may have persisted for years after their initial diagnosis and may not be adequately controlled. Increasing knowledge of the most appropriate pain management planning and strategies for controlling short- and long-term chronic pain among cancer survivors could help reduce the prevalence of pain.

Screening for Lung Cancer - 10 States, 2017.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States; 148,869 lung cancer-associated deaths occurred in 2016 (1). Mortality might be reduced by identifying lung cancer at an early stage when treatment can be more effective (2). In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for adults aged 55-80 years who have a 30 pack-year* smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (2).† This was a Grade B recommendation, which required health insurance plans to cover lung cancer screening as a preventive service.§ To assess the prevalence of lung cancer screening by state, CDC used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data¶ collected in 2017 by 10 states.** Overall, 12.7% adults aged 55-80 years met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. Among those meeting USPSTF criteria, 12.5% reported they had received a CT scan to check for lung cancer in the last 12 months. Efforts to educate health care providers and provide decision support tools might increase recommended lung cancer screening.

Screening for Lung Cancer: 10 States, 2017

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States; 148,869 lung cancer-associated deaths occurred in 2016 (1). Mortality might be reduced by identifying lung cancer at an early stage when treatment can be more effective (2). In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for adults aged 55­80 years who have a 30 pack-year* smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (2).† This was a Grade B recommendation, which required health insurance plans to cover lung cancer screening as a preventive service.§ To assess the prevalence of lung cancer screening by state, CDC used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data¶ collected in 2017 by 10 states.** Overall, 12.7% adults aged 55­80 years met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. Among those meeting USPSTF criteria, 12.5% reported they had received a CT scan to check for lung cancer in the last 12 months. Efforts to educate health care providers and provide decision suppor

Prevention in Prison: The Diabetes Prevention Program in a Correctional Setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether an adaptation of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) could be successfully implemented in a correctional environment to promote weight loss, lower A1C, and improve other cardiometabolic outcomes. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, staggered-start control study was conducted in a female and male federal correctional institution. Twenty-six male and 21 female incarcerated, overweight individuals with prediabetes or at high risk for developing diabetes were randomly assigned to two groups. Data were measured at 6-month intervals starting at baseline for 18 months. Group 1 participated in the 12-month Group Lifestyle Balance intervention program from baseline to 12 months. Group 2 served as a control group from baseline for 6 months and then completed the intervention program from months 6 to 18. RESULTS: Participants were ethnically diverse and mostly >44 years of age. At baseline, members of the two study groups were not significantly different with regard to sex, race/ethnicity, age, or prediabetes status. About half of participants (51%) completed the program, with participants in group 1 significantly more likely to be completers (P <0.05). At 6 months, participants in the intervention group had significantly more weight loss on average (12 lb) than those in the control/delayed-start group (5 lb) (P <0.001). However, both groups (active intervention and control) experienced significant decreases in weight, BMI, triglycerides, and A1C levels after 6 months. In combined analysis, after the 12-month intervention, participants in both groups demonstrated significant decreases in BMI (P <0.001) and A1C (P <0.001) from baseline. CONCLUSION: The DPP may be an effective method for reducing the impact of diabetes in the correctional environment addressed. Larger studies should be conducted to confirm these outcomes. Study findings were affected by high attrition rates, primarily due to transfers and releases from the institution.

Lung Cancer Incidence in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties - United States, 2007-2016.

Lung and bronchus (lung) cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States (1). In 2016, 148,869 lung cancer deaths were reported.* Most lung cancers can be attributed to modifiable exposures, such as tobacco use, secondhand smoke, radon, and asbestos (1). Exposure to lung cancer risk factors vary over time and by characteristics such as sex, age, and nonmetropolitan or metropolitan residence that might affect lung cancer rates (1,2). A recent report found that lung cancer incidence rates were higher and decreased more slowly in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties (3). To examine whether lung cancer incidence trends among nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties differed by age and sex, CDC analyzed data from U.S. Cancer Statistics during 2007-2016, the most recent years for which data are available. During the 10-year study period, lung cancer incidence rates were stable among females aged <35, 45-64, and ≥75 years in nonmetropolitan counties, were stable among females aged <35 years in metropolitan counties, and decreased in all other groups. Overall, among males, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 99 to 82 per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 83 to 63 in metropolitan areas; among females, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 61 to 58 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 57 to 50 in metropolitan areas. A comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos (1). Increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.

Smoking cessation behaviors among older U.S. adults.

Smoking cessation is a critical component of cancer prevention among older adults (age ≥ 65 years). Understanding smoking cessation behaviors among older adults can inform clinical and community efforts to increase successful cessation. We provide current, national prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors among older adults, including interest in quitting, quitting attempts, quitting successes, receiving advice to quit from a healthcare provider, and use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments. The 2015 National Health Interview Survey and Cancer Control Supplement were used to estimate cigarette smoking status and cessation behaviors among older US adults across selected socio-demographic and health characteristics. We found that four in five older adults who had ever smoked cigarettes had quit and more than half who currently smoked were interested in quitting but fewer than half made a past-year quit attempt. Two-thirds of older adults said that a healthcare provider advised them to quit smoking, but just over one-third who tried to quit used evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments and only one in 20 successfully quit in the past year. Prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors were similar across most characteristics. Our study demonstrates that few older adults, across most levels of characteristics examined, successfully quit smoking, underscoring the importance of assisting smoking cessation efforts. Healthcare providers can help older adults quit smoking by offering or referring evidence-based cessation treatments. States and communities can implement population-based interventions including tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free policies, high-impact tobacco education media campaigns, and barrier-free access to evidence-based tobacco cessation counseling and medications.

Prevalence and covariates of problematic gambling among a US military cohort.

The availability of and participation in gambling has increased substantially the past several decades, however studies of military members' gambling behaviors are limited. The present study aimed to investigate potential problematic gambling and its association with demographics and behavioral characteristics in a US military cohort. We analyzed cohort data from a telephone survey during 2015-2016 of 1553 Ohio Army National Guard members. We assessed potential problematic gambling by using the 3-item National Opinion Research Center Diagnostic Screen-Loss of Control, Lying, and Preoccupation Screen (NODS-CLiP). Potential correlates examined were demographics, depression, suicidal ideation, smoking status, alcohol use, legal and financial problems, perceived general health status, pain, and impulsivity. Results indicated past-year frequent gambling (at least once per week) and lifetime potential problematic gambling was reported by 13% and 8% of respondents, respectively. Problematic gambling and past-year gambling behaviors were associated in a dose-response relationship from 18% among soldiers gambling once per week to 44% among those gambling 4 or more times per week. Correlates of screening positive for potential problematic gambling included the following: being male, currently unmarried, having left the Guard or retired, minor depression, alcohol dependence, legal problems, and increased pain. Given the higher prevalence of frequent gambling in this military cohort (8%), nearly twice the US prevalence (5%), and the association with negative psychological and behavioral outcomes, routine screening of gambling frequency and problem gambling may be needed to ensure military and veteran populations live the healthiest lives possible.

Smoking and Smoking Cessation Among Persons with Tobacco- and Non-tobacco-Associated Cancers.

PURPOSE: To examine smoking and use of smoking cessation aids among tobacco-associated cancer (TAC) or non-tobacco-associated cancer (nTAC) survivors. Understanding when and if specific types of cessation resources are used can help with planning interventions to more effectively decrease smoking among all cancer survivors, but there is a lack of research on smoking cessation modalities used among cancer survivors. METHODS: Kentucky Cancer Registry data on incident lung, colorectal, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer cases diagnosed 2007-2011, were linked with health administrative claims data (Medicaid, Medicare, private insurers) to examine the prevalence of smoking and use of smoking cessation aids 1 year prior and 1 year following the cancer diagnosis. TACs included colorectal, pancreatic, and lung cancers; nTAC included breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. RESULTS: There were 10,033 TAC and 13,670 nTAC survivors. Smoking before diagnosis was significantly higher among TAC survivors (p < 0.0001). Among TAC survivors, smoking before diagnosis was significantly higher among persons who: were males (83%), aged 45-64 (83%), of unknown marital status (84%), had very low education (78%), had public insurance (89%), Medicaid (85%) or were uninsured (84%). Smoking cessation counseling and pharmacotherapy were more common among TAC than nTAC survivors (p < 0.01 and p = 0.05, respectively). DISCUSSION: While smoking cessation counseling and pharmacotherapy were higher among TAC survivors, reducing smoking among all cancer survivors remains a priority, given cancer survivors are at increased risk for subsequent chronic diseases, including cancer. Tobacco cessation among all cancer survivors (not just those with TAC) can help improve prognosis, quality of life and reduce the risk of further disease. Health care providers can recommend for individual, group and telephone counseling and/or pharmacotherapy recommendations. These could also be included in survivorship care plans.

Smoking cessation attitudes and practices among cancer survivors - United States, 2015.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of smoking among cancer survivors is similar to the general population. However, there is little evidence on the prevalence of specific smoking cessation behaviors among adult cancer survivors. METHODS: The 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data were analyzed to examine the prevalence of smoking cessation behaviors and use of treatments among cancer survivors. Weighted self-reported prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a sample of 2527 cancer survivors. RESULTS: Among this sample of US cancer survivors, 12% were current smokers, 37% were former smokers, and 51% were never smokers. Compared with former and never smokers, current smokers were younger (< 65 years), less educated, and less likely to report being insured or Medicaid health insurance (p < 0.01). More males were former smokers than current or never smokers. Current smokers reported wanting to quit (57%), a past year quit attempt (49%), or a health professional advised them to quit (66%). Current smokers reported the use of smoking cessation counseling (8%) or medication (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Even after a cancer diagnosis, about one in eight cancer survivors continued to smoke. All could have received advice to quit smoking by a health professional, but a third did not. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Health professionals could consistently advise cancer survivors about the increased risks associated with continued smoking, provide them with cessation counseling and medications, refer them to other free cessation resources, and inform them of cessation treatments covered by their health insurance.

Surveillance for Cancers Associated with Tobacco Use - United States, 2010-2014.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of cancer, contributing to at least 12 types of cancer, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx; esophagus; stomach; colon and rectum; liver; pancreas; larynx; lung, bronchus, and trachea; kidney and renal pelvis; urinary bladder; and cervix. This report provides a comprehensive assessment of recent tobacco-associated cancer incidence for each cancer type by sex, age, race/ethnicity, metropolitan county classification, tumor characteristics, U.S. census region, and state. These data are important for initiation, monitoring, and evaluation of tobacco prevention and control measures. PERIOD COVERED: 2010-2014. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: Cancer incidence data from CDC's National Program of Cancer Registries and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program were used to calculate average annual age-adjusted incidence rates for 2010-2014 and trends in annual age-adjusted incidence rates for 2010-2014. These cancer incidence data cover approximately 99% of the U.S. POPULATION: This report provides age-adjusted cancer incidence rates for each of the 12 cancer types known to be causally associated with tobacco use, including liver and colorectal cancer, which were deemed to be causally associated with tobacco use by the U.S. Surgeon General in 2014. Findings are reported by demographic and geographic characteristics, percentage distributions for tumor characteristics, and trends in cancer incidence by sex. RESULTS: During 2010-2014, approximately 3.3 million new tobacco-associated cancer cases were reported in the United States, approximately 667,000 per year. Age-adjusted incidence rates ranged from 4.2 AML cases per 100,000 persons to 61.3 lung cancer cases per 100,000 persons. By cancer type, incidence rates were higher among men than women (excluding cervical cancer), higher among non-Hispanics than Hispanics (for all cancers except stomach, liver, kidney, and cervical), higher among persons in nonmetropolitan counties than those in metropolitan counties (for all cancers except stomach, liver, pancreatic, and AML), and lower in the West than in other U.S. census regions (all except stomach, liver, bladder, and AML). Compared with other racial/ethnic groups, certain cancer rates were highest among whites (oral cavity and pharyngeal, esophageal, bladder, and AML), blacks (colon and rectal, pancreatic, laryngeal, lung and bronchial, cervical, and kidney), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (stomach and liver). During 2010-2014, the rate of all tobacco-associated cancers combined decreased 1.2% per year, influenced largely by decreases in cancers of the larynx (3.0%), lung (2.2%), colon and rectum (2.1%), and bladder (1.3%). INTERPRETATION: Although tobacco-associated cancer incidence decreased overall during 2010-2014, the incidence remains high in several states and subgroups, including among men, whites, blacks, non-Hispanics, and persons in nonmetropolitan counties. These disproportionately high rates of tobacco-related cancer incidence reflect overall demographic patterns of cancer incidence in the United States and also reflect patterns of tobacco use. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: Tobacco-associated cancer incidence can be reduced through prevention and control of tobacco use and comprehensive cancer-control efforts focused on reducing cancer risk, detecting cancer early, and better assisting communities disproportionately affected by cancer. Ongoing surveillance to monitor cancer incidence can identify populations with a high incidence of tobacco-associated cancers and evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco control programs and policies. Implementation research can be conducted to achieve wider adoption of existing evidence-based cancer prevention and screening programs and tobacco control measures, especially to reach groups with the largest disparities in cancer rates.

A qualitative study of Realtor knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to radon health effects: implications for comprehensive cancer control.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, and radon exposure is the second leading risk factor. Fewer than 25% of existing U.S. homes have been tested for radon, and only 5-10% of new homes use some form of radon prevention. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study sought to determine radon-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Realtors to inform cancer control activities at local and state levels. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with Realtors in four states to collect information about knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding radon. RESULTS: Realtors reported obtaining information on radon in similar ways, being aware of radon and its characteristics, and dealing with radon issues as a normal part of home sales. Differences in attitudes toward testing varied across states. Realtors in states with radon policies generally expressed more positive attitudes toward testing than those in states without policies. Radon mitigation was identified as an added expense to buyers and sellers. Realtors cited concerns about the reliability and credibility of mitigation systems and installers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that attitudes and practices vary among Realtors and that additional educational resources about radon as a cancer risk factor may be beneficial. When comprehensive cancer control programs update their plans, they may want to add objectives, strategies, or activities to reduce radon exposure and prevent lung cancer. These activities could include partnering with Realtors to improve their knowledge, attitudes, and practices about radon, as well as developing and distributing radon educational resources.

Onset of Alcohol Use Disorders and Comorbid Psychiatric Disorders in a Military Cohort: Are there Critical Periods for Prevention of Alcohol Use Disorders?

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are commonly comorbid with anxiety and mood disorders; however, a strategy for AUD prevention remains unclear in the presence of three competing etiological models that each recommends different high-risk groups. Therefore, the investigation of the three hypotheses in a characteristically unique cohort is critical to identifying pervasive characteristics of AUD that can inform a universal prevention strategy. The current study evaluated the temporality and onset of comorbid AUD and psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of 528 Ohio Army National Guard soldiers using structured clinical interviews from 2009 to 2012. We examined temporality both statistically and graphically to identify patterns that could inform prevention. General estimating equations with dichotomous predictor variables were used to estimate odds ratios between comorbid psychiatric disorders and AUDs. An annualized rate of 13.5 % persons per year was diagnosed with any AUD between 2010 and 2012. About an equal proportion of participants with comorbid psychiatric disorders and AUD initiated the psychiatric disorder prior to the AUD and half initiated the psychiatric disorder after the AUD. Regardless of onset, however, the majority (80 %) AUD initiated during a short interval between the ages of 16 and 23. Focused primary prevention during this narrow age range (16-23 years) may have the greatest potential to reduce population mental health burden of AUD, irrespective of the sequencing of comorbid psychiatric disorder.

An epidemiological assessment of reintegration and behavioral health risk at Joint Base Lewis-McCord, Washington.

Soldiers from a brigade at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, were alleged to have committed numerous crimes, including murder of civilians, during a recent deployment. This study was done to assist the command with (1) analyzing the climate and challenges facing redeploying Soldiers; (2) assessing behavioral risk at both individual and unit levels through targeted reintegration screening; and (3) recommending mitigating strategies to enhance current reintegration processes and reduce the level of high-risk behavior among Soldiers following deployment. The findings from this public health investigation suggest levels of risk and major areas of concern during the redeployment period varied across battalions within the brigade and that risk stratification postdeployment was not correlated with discernible differences in predeployment indicators. Acts of violence were limited to the deployment and immediate postdeployment periods and were allegedly perpetrated by a very small number of Soldiers.

An examination of successful soldier postdeployment transition from combat to garrison life.

Previous studies have shown that combat exposures and deployment-related stressors have negative implications on soldiers' postdeployment health and well-being. The current study aimed to examine the individual and combined effects of organizational and social support on the success of soldiers' postdeployment reintegration. In this study, 2,922 U.S. soldiers were surveyed from a brigade combat team at 90-120 days postdeployment, measuring soldiers' perceptions of postdeployment transition home, occupational and social support, stigma and barriers associated with accessing behavioral health care, and previous behavioral health care. Logistic regression analysis indicated that soldiers reporting a positive postdeployment transition home (n = 1,776; 61%) was significantly associated with leadership perceptions, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02, 1.39], unit cohesion, AOR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.09, 1.53], personal support, AOR = 1.37, 95% CI [1.23, 1.52], perceived levels of stigma, AOR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.65, 0.82] barriers to accessing care, AOR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.76, 0.97], and previously accessing behavioral health care, AOR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.28, 0.43]. These findings suggest redeploying soldiers may benefit from programs aimed at improving self-efficacy and coping through fostering occupational and social support, with special concern taken to reduce stigma and barriers to care across the Army.