Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening. METHODS: Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.

Life in Data Sets: Locating and Accessing Data on the Health of Americans Across the Life Span.

CONTEXT: The US government manages a large number of data sets, including federally funded data collection activities that examine infectious and chronic conditions, as well as risk and protective factors for adverse health outcomes. Although there currently is no mature, comprehensive metadata repository of existing data sets, US federal agencies are working to develop and make metadata repositories available that will improve discoverability. However, because these repositories are not yet operating at full capacity, researchers must rely on their own knowledge of the field to identify available data sets. PROGRAM OR POLICY: We sought to identify and consolidate a practical and annotated listing of those data sets. IMPLEMENTATION AND/OR DISSEMINATION: Creative use of data resources to address novel questions is an important research skill in a wide range of fields including public health. This report identifies, promotes, and encourages the use of a range of data sources for health, behavior, economic, and policy research efforts across the life span. EVALUATION: We identified and organized 28 federal data sets by the age-group of primary focus; not all groups are mutually exclusive. These data sets collectively represent a rich source of information that can be used to conduct descriptive epidemiologic studies. DISCUSSION: The data sets identified in this article are not intended to represent an exhaustive list of all available data sets. Rather, we present an introduction/overview of the current federal data collection landscape and some of its largest and most frequently utilized data sets.

Intra-urban patterns of neighborhood-level social capital: a pilot study.

Background: Social capital is a construct of interaction and social trust in one's fellow community members. These interactions can provide a safety net for individuals in terms of information, social support, and adherence to social norms. While a number of studies have previously examined the relationship between social capital and health outcomes, few have examined the theparallel relationship of social capital and geographic "place" with respect to health outcomes. Methods: Considering social capital as facilitated by specific structures, we evaluate the relationship between neighborhood-level social capital and disability rates in a major Southern US city. Disability rates were collected through neighborhood-level data via the AmericanCommunity Survey (ACS) and compared to a geocoded map of neighborhood-level social capital measures during spring, 2016. Results: Higher social capital within a neighborhood coincided with lower disability rates in that neighborhood (r=-0.14, P=0.016) when compared to random assortment models. Conclusion: Findings from this research add evidence to the value of the built environment, not only providing resources and shaping choices, but for facilitating important social relationships.

Family-Focused Public Health: Supporting Homes and Families in Policy and Practice.

Life expectancy in the US is on the decline. Mental health issues associated with opioid abuse and suicide have been implicated for this decline necessitating new approaches and procedures. While Public Health 3.0 provides a call to action for stakeholders to work closely together to address such complex problems as these, less attention has been given to engaging and supporting the most important stakeholders and primary producers of health within the US: families and households. The idea that health begins at home is discussed from the perspective of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention levels. Primary prevention where research provides evidence for the role of the family in healthy child development. Secondary and tertiary prevention where research offers evidence for the role of the family in caregiving. Despite this evidence, greater focus and attention must be placed on the family at all prevention levels as an often overlooked setting of public health practice and level of influence. Prevention across all levels is enhanced as public health practitioners think family when designing and implementing public health policy. Four family impact principles are presented to help guide planning and implementation decisions to nourish family engagement.