4.7 Article

Disparities in Underserved White Populations: The Case of Cancer-Related Disparities in Appalachia

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1072-1081

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0145

关键词

Disparities; Appalachia; Cancer

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Appalachia Community Cancer Network [U01 114622]
  2. Merck
  3. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are meaningful cancer-related disparities in the Appalachian region of the U. S. To address these disparities, the Appalachia Community Cancer Network (ACCN), a collaboration of investigators and community partners in five states (Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), is involved in increasing cancer education and awareness, conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR), and creating mentorship and training opportunities. The primary objective of this paper is to describe cancer-related disparities in the Appalachian region of the U. S. as an example of the disparities experienced by underserved, predominantly white, rural populations, and to describe ACCN activities designed to intervene regarding these disparities. An ACCN overview/history and the diverse activities of ACCN-participating states are presented in an effort to suggest potential useful strategies for working to reduce health-related disparities in underserved white populations. Strengths that have emerged from the ACCN approach (e. g., innovative collaborations, long-standing established networks) and remaining challenges (e. g., difficulties with continually changing communities, scarce resources) are described. Important recommendations that have emerged from the ACCN are also presented, including the value of allowing communities to lead CBPR efforts. Characteristics of the community-based work of the ACCN provide a framework for reducing health-related disparities in Appalachia and in other underserved white and rural populations. The Oncologist 2011; 16: 1072-1081

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据