SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Income”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

57 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

The Childhood Cancer and Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC): Expanding global collaboration in pediatric cancer etiology research.

Childhood cancers are rare, but incidence has risen modestly in countries with robust registration, partly reflecting improved diagnosis. In high-income countries, cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in children. Marked inequities in incidence, survival, and research capacity underscore the need for large-scale collaboration to identify environmental, genetic, and contextual determinants of risk. The Childhood Cancer and Leukemia International Consortium (CLIC) was established in 2007 to study the etiology of childhood leukemia and later expanded in 2019 to include other childhood cancers, principally solid tumors. CLIC pools harmonized, individual-level data from case-control and cohort studies, obtained through interviews, record linkage (insurance claims, registries), or geographic information systems, and integrates germline genomic data where available. Membership has grown from 13 studies in 9 countries to 57 studies in 21 countries; recruitment spans the early 1960s to the present and encompasses approximately 150,000 cases across all tumor types and 300,000 controls with clinical, demographic, and exposure data, centralized via harmonized data dictionaries at the Data Coordination Center, established in 2014 at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and supported by a secure analysis platform. Pooled analyses across diverse populations have implicated parental age, prenatal vitamin or folic acid use, mode of delivery, fetal growth, selected congenital anomalies, occupational or household exposures (e.g., pesticides), paternal smoking, and markers of early-life immune modulation (e.g., breastfeeding, daycare attendance) in leukemia risk, informing carcinogen evaluation and prevention. The integration of genetic ancestry and germline susceptibility data is clarifying ancestry-related differences in leukemia biology and outcomes, while confirming risk loci with population-specific effects. CLIC is now adding polygenic risk scores and exposomic data to refine etiologic subtyping and identify modifiable pathways, while broadening representation from underserved regions through partnership-building and capacity-strengthening.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Health Literacy and Capecitabine Adherence in a Remote Monitoring Pilot Trial for Breast Cancer: Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticancer therapy enables convenient, home-based cancer care but can introduce adherence challenges, particularly with complex dosing schedules. Capecitabine is commonly used in breast cancer, often as adjuvant therapy or in advanced disease, and typically requires twice-daily dosing on cyclical schedules, increasing the risk of missed or incorrect doses. Low health literacy may exacerbate these difficulties, and emerging remote monitoring tools may help close this gap. OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc exploratory analysis, we evaluated whether health literacy (1) was associated with capecitabine adherence and (2) modified a remote monitoring intervention's effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted post hoc analyses of a 2-arm pilot trial that randomized women with breast cancer treated with capecitabine to enhanced usual care (EUC) or remote patient monitoring (RPM). Adherence was captured with a smart pill bottle, Nomi by SMRxT, that recorded dose timing and quantity. Participants in the RPM group received messages for missed or incorrect doses and weekly symptom assessments. Incorrect or missed doses and severe symptoms triggered alerts to the oncologist. Health literacy was assessed at enrollment. To evaluate moderation, we used linear regression with an interaction term (health literacy × intervention arm) predicting adherence (proportion of days). Marginal effects quantified differences in adherence by study arm and health literacy. RESULTS: Among 28 participants (EUC, n=15 and RPM, n=13), 9 (32.1%) had lower health literacy, 16 (57.1%) identified as Black, 10 (35.7%) identified as White, and 15 (53.6%) had income below 200% of the federal poverty level. In the regression model, the health literacy × randomized group interaction did not reach statistical significance (-16.3 percentage points, 95% CI -35.5 to 2.9; P=.09). Predicted adherence among lower health literacy participants was 87.5% in the RPM group and 65.5% in the EUC group (difference: +22.1 percentage points, 95% CI 6.2-37.9; P=.008). Among participants with higher health literacy, adherence was 89.9% in the RPM group and 84.1% in the EUC group (difference: +5.7 percentage points, 95% CI -5.2 to 16.7; P=.29). Within the EUC group, predicted adherence was 18.6 percentage points lower among those with lower versus higher health literacy (95% CI -32.4 to -4.9; P=.01); within the RPM group, this difference was 2.3 percentage points lower among those with lower versus higher health literacy (95% CI -15.8 to 11.1; P=.73). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc exploratory analysis, the estimated difference in capecitabine adherence between the RPM and EUC groups was larger among participants with lower health literacy. Although the formal interaction test was not statistically significant, the magnitude and direction of the observed difference support further investigation of RPM as a potential approach to improve adherence among patients facing health literacy-related adherence barriers. Larger, prospectively powered studies are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate downstream clinical outcomes.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

A Multimethod Evaluation to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of HPVVaxFacts, a Tailored Mobile Web App, for Parents With Unvaccinated Children: Pilot 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve provider-parent communication on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to reduce concerns, and increase intention and uptake. HPVVaxFacts (233 Analytics) is a novel, mobile web app delivering tailored education based on the Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action, addressing parental concerns preclinic visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HPVVaxFacts among parents of adolescents aged 9-17 years. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial in 2 urban Tennessee clinics from June to September 2023 comparing 2 groups: tailored education via HPVVaxFacts mobile web app (intervention, n=27), and nutrition education (attention control, n=30). Eligible parents had or were caregivers to a child aged 9 to 17 years unvaccinated against HPV, had a mobile phone, had an upcoming clinic visit, and spoke English. The recruitment strategy was patient intake software-Phreesia (Phreesia, Inc) and eClinicalWorks (eClinicalWorks). Although unblinded, parents could deduce their study arm assignment. Providers were blinded. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HPV vaccine knowledge, concerns, intentions, and vaccination rates) were assessed using multimethod evaluation. Parents were assessed at baseline and immediately post intervention via surveys. Vaccination rates were assessed at 12 months post intervention via electronic health records. Nineteen parent interviews were conducted up to 9 months post intervention. A clinic staff consultation (n=6) was 1 month post intervention. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled parents, most were female (52/57, 91%), non-Hispanic White (44/57, 77%), had ≤US $80,000 household income (32/57, 56%), and had some college or less (27/57, 47%). In total, 81% (29/36) of parents viewed HPVVaxFacts. Post intervention, HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the intervention group compared to the attention control group (48% vs 17%; difference 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-0.46; P=.01). Parents in the HPVVaxFacts arm demonstrated a greater reduction in knowledge (ie, knowledge increase; mean change: -0.6 vs 0.1) and concern scores (mean change: -3.4 vs -1.4) than those in the nutrition education arm. However, between-arm differences were not statistically significant (P=.13 and P=.14, respectively). The majority found the study protocol and HPVVaxFacts acceptable. Benefits of HPVVaxFacts include confirming their decision to vaccinate, supporting parent-child discussion on the vaccine, and answering questions preclinic visit or offering questions for the provider. Study protocol delivery and mobile web app instructions were suggested areas for improvement. Barriers for HPVVaxFacts use include content in English only and digital format. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests HPVVaxFacts was feasible and acceptable among parents to provide previsit, tailored information on HPV vaccination. Outcomes offer a positive trajectory but need more exploration. Next steps include a well-powered efficacy trial to determine the impact of HPVVaxFacts on initiation vaccine rates and parental hesitancy factors, as well as to explore an interaction, effect modification, and mediation among different variables.

Humans↗