The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening by primary care clinicians to detect suicide risk in the general population.
"In terms of secondary prevention, routine skin self-examinations (SSEs) are recommended by the US and the UK for skin cancer survivors even though mortality reduction data is insufficient,46,47 whereas regular total body skin exams (TBSEs) by physicians are pertinent and can decrease melanoma deaths by more than 50% as reported by a study in northern Germany.48 Surveys of high-risk skin cancer patients have shown that a variety of factors contribute to skin cancer survivors’ likelihood to perform SSE, such as being female, dermatology visits with lesion biopsy, and perceived personal risk for skin cancer.39,44,49 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Over 3 million new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the US annually. Melanoma, a subtype of skin cancer that can be fatal if the disease is not detected and treated at an early stage, is the most common cancer for those aged 25-29 years and the second most common cancer in adolescents and young adults aged 15-29 years. The primary carcinogen for the genesis of skin cancers is ultraviolet light from solar radiation and tanning beds. In spite of massive health campaigns to raise public awareness on ultraviolet radiation, sun-protective practices still fall behind. A plausible explanation is the lack of behavioral change in the populations at risk; in this review article, we examine sun-protective behavior in the four high-risk skin cancer groups: skin cancer survivors, individuals with a family history of melanoma, individuals with physical characteristics associated with skin cancer risk, and organ transplantation patients. Findings in the literature demonstrate that increased knowledge and awareness does not consequently translate into behavioral changes in practice. Behavior can differ as a result of different attitudes and beliefs, depending on the population at risk. Thus, intervention should be tailored to the population targeted. A multidisciplinary health team providing consultation and education is required to influence these much needed changes.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management 12/2013; 7:9-18. DOI:10.2147/PRBM.S40457
"For analyses of cancer testing, we included working women 40 years and older in the analysis of mammography. During the time of this survey, recommendations for mammography included women from age 40 to 49 years . All adult working women (18 years of age or older) were included in analyses of Pap testing. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Preventive health care services, such as cancer screening can be particularly vulnerable to a lack of paid leave from work since care is not being sought for illness or symptoms. We first describe the prevalence of paid sick leave by broad occupational categories and then examine the association between access to paid sick leave and cancer testing and medical care-seeking in the U.S. workforce.
Data from the 2008 National Health Interview survey were analyzed by using paid sick leave status and other health-related factors to describe the proportion of U.S. workers undergoing mammography, Pap testing, endoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and medical-care seeking.
More than 48 million individuals (38%) in an estimated U.S. working population of 127 million did not have paid sick leave in 2008. The percentage of workers who underwent mammography, Pap test, endoscopy at recommended intervals, had seen a doctor during the previous 12 months or had at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous 12 months was significantly higher among those with paid sick leave compared with those without sick leave after controlling for sociodemographic and health-care-related factors.
Lack of paid sick leave appears to be a potential barrier to obtaining preventive medical care and is a societal benefit that is potentially amenable to change.
BMC Public Health 07/2012; 12(1):520. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-520 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.