SCRHRC Researchers Address Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer, associated with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, is a significant public health problem in South Carolina. The state ranks 14^th in cervical cancer mortality overall, but African American and rural women are more likely to die of cervical cancer. This disparity in cervical cancer mortality persists despite a 75% reduction in mortality since the introduction of the Pap test.

Several SCRHRC researchers were involved in the December issue of the Journal of the South Carolina Medical Association, which highlights cervical cancer prevention and control efforts. Dr. Saundra Glover, Associate Director of the SCRHRC, led the effort to combine the resources in the academic community and partnerships with the community. One of the postdoctoral fellows at the Center, Jessica Bellinger, authored an article describing the results of a population-based survey of HPV and cervical cancer in the state. Jessica Bellinger is also involved in community-based programs as part of the Call to Action: Preventing Cervical Cancer Among African-American Women, highlighted in the Summer 2009 issue of “In Our Hands” from the South Carolina Cancer Disparities Community Network. Study results were presented at the NRHA Multicultural and Minority Conference in Memphis, TN.

More information about the cervical cancer issue of the Journal of the South Carolina Medical Association can be found here (http://www.sc.edu/news/newsarticle.php?nid=652&pg=1) and here (www.sph.sc.edu/health_disparities). Details about the community efforts with the SC Cancer Disparities Community Network can be found here (http://sccdcn.sph.sc.edu/newsletters/index.htm).

Crazy teacher rant

We all encourage our students to attend professional conferences to network with established scientists and learn new research techniques.

****The good:

A terrific presentation on the use of video recording and detailed analysis to study the nature of the interaction between nursing assistants and residents in long term care. Very cool method, very caring researcher. Kudos to Dr. Lene Levy-Storms and her colleagues.

Kudos to all the good presentations made by our students/post-docs (who never commit any of the errors outlined below): Jessica Bellinger, Minnjuan Flournoy, Chinelo Ogbuanu, & Lekhena Sros.

And kudos to all the wonderful researchers whose presentations I could not attend, as there were 900 individual sessions in a very short period.

****The .... you know.

The next time I attend the APHA Annual Conference, I would dearly love a magic wand [or similar] with which to smite the research unrighteous. Actually, since many presenters are students, I would like to smite the presenters' mentors:

-- If you test 18 [or more] different outcomes and 2 of them are significant at p less than 0.05, don't get all excited. Do the math. Bassmasters does not do this much fishing.

-- Results that do not differ statistically DO NOT DIFFER. Don't pretend they do by discussing them anyway. The purpose of science is to generate new knowledge, not to confirm your hypotheses.

-- Do NOT create "slides" that are actually the sentences from your abstract, pasted into PPT, which you then read.

Kudos to Dr. Van Nostrand

Back from APHA Annual Conference, we are delighted to note the honor afforded to Dr. Joan Van Nostrand of the Office of Rural Health Policy: A Lifetime Achievement Award from the Gerontological Health Section of the American Public Health Association. Beginning with her work at the National Center for Health Statistics (we won't say when), Dr. Van Nostrand has consistently expanded the nation's understanding of health status and the provision of health care among older adults. Since we all plan on being older one day, her work examining issues such as home health care and nursing homes will benefit all of us.

On Cancer, Health Reform, and Rural

According to the AP wire for September 19, Congresswoman Sue Wyrick, R-NC, recently spoke out in opposition to health care reform. She cited her own case, which she described as requiring “six doctors, three mammograms and one ultrasound” as taking “only a few weeks.” She asserted that in Canada and the UK, she might have had to wait “more than a month.” [1]

Leaving aside the question of whether there is a substantive difference between “a few weeks” and “more than a month,” and acknowledging the traumatic nature of breast cancer for any woman, the lawmaker could still use some education regarding health care in the US.

- All women do not have equal access to mammograms, and thus to the quick treatment received by Rep. Wyrick. Among age-appropriate women (over age 40), rural women are less likely to receive timely mammograms than their urban sisters (71% versus 78%). Among uninsured rural women, only 51% get screened. [2] That means barely above a coin flip that cancer will be detected among these women.

- For women who are not receiving routine screening and must wait till they detect a suspicious lump to seek out free screening for the uninsured, the clock starts a lot later than “more than a month.” This has real consequences: uninsured women are more than twice as likely to have advanced stage cancer when they first seek treatment (18% for uninsured versus 8% for privately insured women). [3] At that point, they likely would have traded "more than a month" waits to have had their cancer detected at Stage I.

The health care reform debate is not trivial for folks living “outside the Beltway.” We need lawmakers who are both passionate and informed about rural.

References:

[1] “GOP lawmaker warns of dangers in health overhaul” http://www.thestate.com/nationalpolitics/story/949479.html

[2] SCRHRC Health Disparities Chartbook, http://rhr.sph.sc.edu/index.php

[3] Halpern et al, Cancer July 15, 2007, p 395-402.

Reform and Rural

The SCRHRC was fortunate enough to be a participant at the ORHP Grantee Partnership meeting in DC last week. An overwhelming message on the part of participants: let the wonks sort out the details, but let's have a beginning to health care reform now. We can tweak later.

The LA Times published an interesting analysis of the health reform paradox: rural states (South and West) would be the biggest "winners" if health care reform makes care more accessible, but residents in these areas are most likely to oppose change of any kind [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/healthcare/la-na-uninsured-rural2-2009sep02,0,1307203.story]. If it is difficult to bring change in good times, it may be even more challenging to effect change in bad times.

Lest We Forget

Arriving in DC for the ORHP Grantee Partnerships Meeting, I was fortunate enough to encounter the events pictured. USAirways flies WWII vets to DC, free of charge, to visit the WWII memorial. An honor guard of vets from subsequent wars was present to escort their brothers and sisters to the memorial.

Planning the future of rural research

The National Center for Minority Health Disparities (NCMHD) and the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP) convened a terriric meeting in DC July 30 and 31, in which the SCRHRC participated. The overall purpose of the meeting, in the words of the pre-meeting materials, was to “provide NCMHD and ORHP with more insight into the best practices, research gaps, and innovation opportunities in addressing and eliminating rural health disparities.” About 30 rural health researchers and representatives of significant rural population groups met to work on defining research opportunities that NCMHD may wish to pursue to reduce disparities experienced by rural (not necessarily minority) populations.

This was a working meeting, not a listening meeting. Participants were divided into three groups, and each group spent the day brainstorming research recommendations for the three areas outlined: best practices, research gaps, and innovation opportunities. The task was harder than it sounds. First, “research gaps” kept sneaking into every discussion. As the rural community has been saying for years, we lack data and quality research on so many aspects of rural: disease burden, health behavior, health care systems operation, and outcomes. Second, it’s hard to keep “best practices” from sneaking into innovation. We know a good thing when we see it. At least, we think it’s a good thing; research is needed to confirm that a cool idea is a best practice. But it’s hard to sit around a table at a hotel in DC and predict the next new thing! Back in the day, I bought a Betamax (kids, ask your parents), so I definitely don’t set myself up as an innovation predictor.

By 5:00 Thursday afternoon, the participants were all drooping slightly from the effort of expending so much creativity. During the Friday summary presentations and discussion, it was clear that most of us agreed on some issues: need for rural data, workforce as a lasting issue, the need for partnerships. The list of topics in all areas was fairly deep and extensive. The proceedings should make a very interesting document.