Biomedical subjects

Tim Aldrich

Publications and source records attributed to Tim Aldrich.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Which life?

"Saving a life" is a credible definition of heroism in the United States. However, the pervasive societal impression of immediate gratification has led to a widespread recognition of "life saving" only in circumstances of immediate danger. The lengthening national life expectancy is not accorded respect as an accomplishment in and of itself. Families of dying, elderly persons still mistake the "loss" by failing to appreciate the many times this life has been saved and esteeming the accomplishment that death at a later age poses. Public health and preventive medicine both suffer general disregard for this shortsighted perspective, from the public and those who determine federal funding priorities. This narrative expounds on this frustration and describes its implication for the future of public health as it is currently practiced in this nation.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Pediatric cancer in Kentucky: good news.

Pediatric cancer is one of the more poignant aspects associated with the occurrence of this prominent chronic disease. Nationally, pediatric cancers occur with vastly lesser frequency than does adult disease, about 1:40 ratio. Nationally the rate is 14.6 per 100,000 population, age, 0-14 years. In Kentucky, all pediatric cancer rates are consistently lower, a statewide rate of 11.3 per 100,000. A rigorous examination was made for any evidence of unusual risk for pediatric cancer within the state; none was found. The population center of Jefferson County was examined with a bit greater detail, owing simply to the larger number. Again, no basis for public health or follow-back was identified. Among the most frequent pediatric cancers, leukemia, central nervous system, and brain were studied for implications of residential proximity to environmental hazards; no evidence of increased risk was identified. In all of the state, only Hardin County evinced any excess pediatric cancer risk, i.e., was significantly greater than the national rates. Yet this highly mobile population [owing to a large military population] may simply represent rates that are more compatible with those of the nation. For the Kentucky comprehensive disease control efforts, then, no emphasis need be placed with pediatric cancer beyond the intense personal tragedy that it poses.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Things to know and do about cancer clusters.

Perceived cancer clusters present difficulties and opportunities for clinicians and public health officials alike. Public health officials receive reports of perceived cancer clusters, evaluate the validity of these reports, and/or launch investigations to identify potential causes. Clinicians interact directly with the affected patients, families, or community representatives who question the occurrence of cancer and the underlying causes. Clinicians may identify cancer clusters when they question the unusual occurrence of a rare form of cancer within their practice or community. In addition, clinicians may be asked to discuss cancer clusters and inform local debates. In this paper, we describe the public health practice experience with cancer clusters and identify cancer prevention and control opportunities for clinicians and public health officials. Scientific investigations of cancer clusters rarely uncover new knowledge about the causes of cancer. However, a set of common characteristics, unique to etiologic cluster investigations have uncovered new information about the causes of cancer or demonstrated a preventable link to a known carcinogen. These characteristics may provide useful clues for sorting out the small number of clusters worthy of further scientific investigation. Public awareness of cancer clusters may promote an opportunity to inform and motivate people about the preventable causes of cancer and effective cancer screening methods.

Cluster Analysis↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Clinical trial enrollment of rural patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to examine the effect of a rural community clinical oncology program-based cancer-care intervention program that was launched to increase the number of rural patients with cancer enrolled in clinical trials. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: Five rural counties in eastern North Carolina served as intervention communities, and five rural counties in South Carolina served as the comparison region. The intervention counties used a rapid tumor-reporting system, a nurse facilitator who identified and prompted oncologists to enter patients into clinical trials, a quarterly newsletter to primary-care physicians about cancer treatment and clinical trials, and a health educator who focused on community-wide education regarding cancer prevention, treatment, and clinical trial information. Outcomes included changes in knowledge and attitudes about clinical trials among the primary-care providers who were surveyed and enrollment in clinical treatment trials for breast and colorectal cancer, as analyzed by comparing practice pattern data from before and after the intervention. RESULTS: The results indicate that the intervention was not effective. The proportion of primary-care physicians who were aware of clinical trials for their patients with cancer rose slightly in comparison counties (26% to 34%) but remained constant (41% to 43%) in intervention counties. Perceived patient and actual physician barriers toward clinical trial participation were reported by the physicians. A minority of potentially eligible patients with breast or colon cancer in both North Carolina and South Carolina were enrolled in clinical trials. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These data suggest that different types of interventions may be needed to improve accrual to cancer treatment trials in rural communities. In addition, the role that primary-care providers play in encouraging patients with cancer to participate in clinical treatment trials needs further exploration.

Breast Neoplasms↗