This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Miller, S. M. Articles by Wang, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miller, S. M. Articles by Wang, C.

Current Research Promises and Challenges in Behavioral Oncology

Report from the American Society of Preventive Oncology Annual Meeting, 2002

¹ Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; ² Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center; ³ The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center; ⁴ Moffit Cancer Center; ⁵ National Cancer Institute; ⁶ University of Michigan; ⁷ University of Minnesota; and ⁸ University of North Carolina

The Behavioral Oncology Interest Group of the American Society of Preventive Oncology held a Roundtable session on March 10, 2002, at the American Society of Preventive Oncology annual meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss the current state-of-the-science in behavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control and to delineate priorities for additional research. Four key areas were considered: (a) behavioral approaches to cancer genetic risk assessment and testing; (b) biological mechanisms of psychosocial effects on cancer; (c) the role of risk perceptions in cancer screening adherence; and (d) the impact of tailored and targeted interventions on cancer prevention and control research. The evidence reviewed indicates that behavioral approaches have made significant contributions to cancer prevention and control research. At the same time, there is a need to more closely link future investigations to the underlying base of behavioral science principles and paradigms that guide them. To successfully bridge the gap between the availability of effective new cancer prevention and control technologies and the participants they are meant to serve will require the development of more integrative conceptual models, the incorporation of more rigorous methodological designs, and more precise identification of the individual and group characteristics of the groups under study.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. E. Ropka, J. Wenzel, E. K. Phillips, M. Siadaty, and J. T. Philbrick Uptake rates for breast cancer genetic testing: a systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2006; 15(5): 840 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. W. Vernon, H. I. Meissner, and S. M. Miller The role of behavioral science in cancer prevention research: planning the next steps in the collaborative process. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2006; 15(3): 413 - 415. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Campbell and L. M. Quintiliani Tailored Interventions in Public Health: Where Does Tailoring Fit in Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities? American Behavioral Scientist, February 1, 2006; 49(6): 775 - 793. [Abstract] [PDF]