Dataset Information

Mortality-to-incidence ratios by US Congressional District: Implications for epidemiologic, dissemination and implementation research, and public health policy.

ABSTRACT: The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) can be computed from readily accessible, public-use data on cancer incidence and mortality, and a high MIR value is an indicator of poor survival relative to incidence. Newly available data on congressional district-specific cancer incidence and mortality from the U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) database from 2011 to 2015 were used to compute MIR values for overall (all types combined), breast, cervix, colorectal, esophagus, lung, oral, pancreas, and prostate cancer. Congressional districts in the South and Midwest, including MS, AL, and KY, had higher (worse) MIR values for all cancer types combined than for the U.S. as a whole. For all cancers combined, there was a positive correlation between each district's percent of rural residents and the MIR (r?=?0.47; p?

SUBMITTER: Eberth JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7393609 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality-to-incidence ratios by US Congressional District: Implications for epidemiologic, dissemination and implementation research, and public health policy.

Eberth Jan M JM Zahnd Whitney E WE Adams Swann Arp SA Friedman Daniela B DB Wheeler Stephanie B SB Hébert James R JR

Preventive medicine 20191101

The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) can be computed from readily accessible, public-use data on cancer incidence and mortality, and a high MIR value is an indicator of poor survival relative to incidence. Newly available data on congressional district-specific cancer incidence and mortality from the U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS) database from 2011 to 2015 were used to compute MIR values for overall (all types combined), breast, cervix, colorectal, esophagus, lung, oral, pancreas, and prostate ...[more]

PMID: 31679842

Similar Datasets

Project description:Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of "policy," "policies," "law," "legal," "legislation," "ordinance," "statute," "regulation," "regulatory," "code," or "rule." A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics--stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics--were produced.Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.

Project description:BackgroundWhile dissemination and implementation (D&I) science has grown rapidly, there is an ongoing need to understand how to build and sustain capacity in individuals and institutions conducting research. There are three inter-related domains for capacity building: people, settings, and activities. Since 2008, Washington University in St. Louis has dedicated significant attention and resources toward building D&I research capacity. This paper describes our process, challenges, and lessons with the goal of informing others who may have similar aims at their own institution.ActivitiesAn informal collaborative, the Washington University Network for Dissemination and Implementation Research (WUNDIR), began with a small group and now has 49 regular members. Attendees represent a wide variety of settings and content areas and meet every 6 weeks for half-day sessions. A logic model organizes WUNDIR inputs, activities, and outcomes. A mixed-methods evaluation showed that the network has led to new professional connections and enhanced skills (e.g., grant and publication development). As one of four, ongoing, formal programs, the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) was our first major component of D&I infrastructure. DIRC's mission is to accelerate the public health impact of clinical and health services research by increasing the engagement of investigators in later stages of translational research. The aims of DIRC are to advance D&I science and to develop and equip researchers with tools for D&I research. As a second formal component, the Washington University Institute for Public Health has provided significant support for D&I research through pilot projects and a small grants program. In a third set of formal programs, two R25 training grants (one in mental health and one in cancer) support post-doctoral scholars for intensive training and mentoring in D&I science. Finally, our team coordinates closely with D&I functions within research centers across the university. We share a series of challenges and potential solutions.ConclusionOur experience in developing D&I research at Washington University in St. Louis shows how significant capacity can be built in a relatively short period of time. Many of our ideas and ingredients for success can be replicated, tailored, and improved upon by others.

Dataset Information

Mortality-to-incidence ratios by US Congressional District: Implications for epidemiologic, dissemination and implementation research, and public health policy.

Publications

Mortality-to-incidence ratios by US Congressional District: Implications for epidemiologic, dissemination and implementation research, and public health policy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets