scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

GovernmentAtlanta, Georgia, United States
About: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a government organization based out in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Public health. The organization has 58238 authors who have published 82592 publications receiving 4405701 citations. The organization is also known as: CDC & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review of the literature on barriers to HPV vaccination among US adolescents to inform future efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage was conducted by as mentioned in this paper, where 55 relevant articles were summarized by target populations: health care professionals, parents, underserved and disadvantaged populations, and males.
Abstract: Importance Since licensure of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006, HPV vaccine coverage among US adolescents has increased but remains low compared with other recommended vaccines. Objective To systematically review the literature on barriers to HPV vaccination among US adolescents to inform future efforts to increase HPV vaccine coverage. Evidence Review We searched PubMed and previous review articles to identify original research articles describing barriers to HPV vaccine initiation and completion among US adolescents. Only articles reporting data collected in 2009 or later were included. Findings from 55 relevant articles were summarized by target populations: health care professionals, parents, underserved and disadvantaged populations, and males. Findings Health care professionals cited financial concerns and parental attitudes and concerns as barriers to providing the HPV vaccine to patients. Parents often reported needing more information before vaccinating their children. Concerns about the vaccine’s effect on sexual behavior, low perceived risk of HPV infection, social influences, irregular preventive care, and vaccine cost were also identified as potential barriers among parents. Some parents of sons reported not vaccinating their sons because of the perceived lack of direct benefit. Parents consistently cited health care professional recommendations as one of the most important factors in their decision to vaccinate their children. Conclusions and Relevance Continued efforts are needed to ensure that health care professionals and parents understand the importance of vaccinating adolescents before they become sexually active. Health care professionals may benefit from guidance on communicating HPV recommendations to patients and parents. Further efforts are also needed to reduce missed opportunities for HPV vaccination when adolescents interface with the health care system. Efforts to increase uptake should take into account the specific needs of subgroups within the population. Efforts that address system-level barriers to vaccination may help to increase overall HPV vaccine uptake.

744 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This review will summarize key studies of pathogenesis, related genes, risk factors and preventative methods on breast cancer over the past years and represent a small step in the long fight against breast cancer.
Abstract: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The development of breast cancer is a multi-step process involving multiple cell types, and its prevention remains challenging in the world. Early diagnosis of breast cancer is one of the best approaches to prevent this disease. In some developed countries, the 5-year relative survival rate of breast cancer patients is above 80% due to early prevention. In the recent decade, great progress has been made in the understanding of breast cancer as well as in the development of preventative methods. The pathogenesis and tumor drug-resistant mechanisms are revealed by discovering breast cancer stem cells, and many genes are found related to breast cancer. Currently, people have more drug options for the chemoprevention of breast cancer, while biological prevention has been recently developed to improve patients' quality of life. In this review, we will summarize key studies of pathogenesis, related genes, risk factors and preventative methods on breast cancer over the past years. These findings represent a small step in the long fight against breast cancer.

743 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These findings, based on the research enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals, the vast majority from the US, suggest that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are as willing as non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research.
Abstract: Background: It is widely claimed that racial and ethnic minorities, especially in the US,are less willing than non-minority individuals to participate in health research. Yet,there is a paucity of empirical data to substantiate this claim. Methods and Findings: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all puublished health research studies that report consent rates by race or ethnicity. We found 20 health research studies that reported consent rates by race or ethnicity. These 20 studies reported the enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals for a broad range of research,from interviews to drug treatment to surgical trials. Eighteen of the twenty studies were single-site studies conducted exclusively in the US or multi-site studies where the majority of sites (i.e., at least 2/3) were in the US. Of the remaining two studies, the Concorde study was conducted at 74 sites in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, while the Delta study was conducted at 152 sites in Europe and 23 sites in Australia and New Zealand. For the three interview or non-intervention studies, African-Americans had a nonsignificantly lower overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (82.2% versus 83.5%; odds ratio [OR] ¼ 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–1.02). For these same three studies, Hispanics had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (86.1% versus 83.5%; OR ¼ 1.37; 95% CI 0.94–1.98). For the ten clinical intervention studies, African-Americans’ overall consent rate was nonsignificantly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites (45.3% versus 41.8%; OR¼1.06; 95% CI 0.78–1.45). For these same ten studies, Hispanics had a statistically significant higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (55.9% versus 41.8%; OR¼1.33; 95% CI 1.08–1.65). For the seven surgery trials, which report all minority groups together, minorities as a group had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (65.8% versus 47.8%; OR ¼ 1.26; 95% CI 0.89–1.77). Given the preponderance of US sites, the vast majority of these individuals from minority groups were African-Americans or Hispanics from the US. Conclusions We found very small differences in the willingness of minorities, most of whom were African-Americans and Hispanics in the US, to participate in health research compared to non-Hispanic whites. These findings, based on the research enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals, the vast majority from the US, suggest that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are as willing as non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research. Hence, efforts to increase minority participation in health research should focus on ensuring access to health research for all groups, rather than changing minority attitudes.

743 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: High transmissibility of COVID-19 before and immediately after symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to interrupt transmission, and that more generalized measures might be required, such as social distancing.
Abstract: Importance The dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmissibility are yet to be fully understood. Better understanding of the transmission dynamics is important for the development and evaluation of effective control policies. Objective To delineate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 and evaluate the transmission risk at different exposure window periods before and after symptom onset. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective case-ascertained study in Taiwan included laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their contacts. The study period was from January 15 to March 18, 2020. All close contacts were quarantined at home for 14 days after their last exposure to the index case. During the quarantine period, any relevant symptoms (fever, cough, or other respiratory symptoms) of contacts triggered a COVID-19 test. The final follow-up date was April 2, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Secondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) for different exposure time windows of the index cases and for different exposure settings (such as household, family, and health care). Results We enrolled 100 confirmed patients, with a median age of 44 years (range, 11-88 years), including 44 men and 56 women. Among their 2761 close contacts, there were 22 paired index-secondary cases. The overall secondary clinical attack rate was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%). The attack rate was higher among the 1818 contacts whose exposure to index cases started within 5 days of symptom onset (1.0% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.6%]) compared with those who were exposed later (0 cases from 852 contacts; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%). The 299 contacts with exclusive presymptomatic exposures were also at risk (attack rate, 0.7% [95% CI, 0.2%-2.4%]). The attack rate was higher among household (4.6% [95% CI, 2.3%-9.3%]) and nonhousehold (5.3% [95% CI, 2.1%-12.8%]) family contacts than that in health care or other settings. The attack rates were higher among those aged 40 to 59 years (1.1% [95% CI, 0.6%-2.1%]) and those aged 60 years and older (0.9% [95% CI, 0.3%-2.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, high transmissibility of COVID-19 before and immediately after symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized measures may be required, such as social distancing.

742 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines for field triage of injured patients; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; and provides the rationale used by Panel for these changes.
Abstract: In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.

740 citations


Authors

Showing all 58382 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Graham A. Colditz2611542256034
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Bernard Rosner1901162147661
Richard Peto183683231434
Aaron R. Folsom1811118134044
Didier Raoult1733267153016
James F. Sallis169825144836
David R. Jacobs1651262113892
Steven N. Blair165879132929
Gordon J. Freeman164579105193
Dennis R. Burton16468390959
Rory Collins162489193407
Ali H. Mokdad156634160599
Caroline S. Fox155599138951
Paul Elliott153773103839
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Maryland, Baltimore
64.7K papers, 2.9M citations

90% related

Emory University
122.4K papers, 6M citations

89% related

University of Alabama at Birmingham
86.7K papers, 3.9M citations

89% related

University of Colorado Denver
57.2K papers, 2.5M citations

89% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

88% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202327
2022254
20215,505
20205,426
20194,527
20184,344