» Articles » PMID: 1856311

Communicating to an Alarmed Community About Cancer Clusters: a Fifty State Survey

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Public Health
Date 1991 Apr 1
PMID 1856311
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A survey of all 50 U.S. states conducted in 1989 showed that 1,300-1,650 requests for cancer cluster investigations were received by state health departments. Most states responded with a three-stage process aimed at prioritizing clusters at each stage. Those situations deemed most serious were passed on to the next stage of evaluation. Thirty-eight of the 50 states said that communicating risk information to informants was a productive outcome, and 26 states sent materials to informants explaining the causes of cancer, clusters, how clusters are investigated, and other health education materials. Many states requested detailed information about reported clusters from informants. States with a major commitment to protecting public health and environment were more likely to provide information than states with weaker programs. Some officials discouraged people from pursuing their requests by trying to convince informants that a problem did not exist and by overwhelming them with questions and information. We recommend that health departments train their respondents in risk communications and establish an organizational climate that provides financial resources and institutional support appropriate to the complex task of communicating risk information to a public alarmed about a cancer cluster.

Citing Articles

Michael R. Greenberg-Talking to the media requires clear, concise, relatable messages.

Burger J, Lowrie K, Greenberg M Risk Anal. 2023; 42(11):2504-2509.

PMID: 36625056 PMC: 10324414. DOI: 10.1111/risa.14057.


Stop and listen to the people: an enhanced approach to cancer cluster investigations.

Simpson B, Truant P, Resnick B Am J Public Health. 2014; 104(7):1204-8.

PMID: 24832152 PMC: 4056245. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301836.


Challenges created by data dissemination and access restrictions when attempting to address community concerns: individual privacy versus public wellbeing.

Colquhoun A, Aplin L, Geary J, Goodman K, Hatcher J Int J Circumpolar Health. 2012; 71(0):1-7.

PMID: 22584511 PMC: 3417584. DOI: 10.3402/ijch.v71i0.18414.


Adequacy of state capacity to address noncommunicable disease clusters in the era of environmental public health tracking.

Juzych N, Resnick B, Streeter R, Herbstman J, Zablotsky J, Fox M Am J Public Health. 2007; 97 Suppl 1:S163-9.

PMID: 17413060 PMC: 1854996. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.096453.


Spatial epidemiology: current approaches and future challenges.

Elliott P, Wartenberg D Environ Health Perspect. 2004; 112(9):998-1006.

PMID: 15198920 PMC: 1247193. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.6735.


References
1.
Rothman K . Clustering of disease. Am J Public Health. 1987; 77(1):13-5. PMC: 1646798. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.77.1.13. View

2.
Warner S, Aldrich T . The status of cancer cluster investigations undertaken by state health departments. Am J Public Health. 1988; 78(3):306-7. PMC: 1349183. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.78.3.306. View

3.
Frumkin H, KANTROWITZ W . Cancer clusters in the workplace: an approach to investigation. J Occup Med. 1987; 29(12):949-52. View

4.
Schulte P, Ehrenberg R, Singal M . Investigation of occupational cancer clusters: theory and practice. Am J Public Health. 1987; 77(1):52-6. PMC: 1646814. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.77.1.52. View

5.
Greenberg M, Wartenberg D . How epidemiologists can improve television network news coverage of disease cluster reports. Epidemiology. 1990; 1(2):167-70. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199003000-00016. View