对加拿大国家癌症研究所癌症控制框架的批评。

A J Cameron, K S Brown, R S Cohen, A M Leis, S Manske, K Olson, P G Ritvo
{"title":"对加拿大国家癌症研究所癌症控制框架的批评。","authors":"A J Cameron,&nbsp;K S Brown,&nbsp;R S Cohen,&nbsp;A M Leis,&nbsp;S Manske,&nbsp;K Olson,&nbsp;P G Ritvo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper offers a critique of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's (NCIC) framework for cancer control. The critique has been prepared by researchers who used the framework to review the literature in 5 substantive areas. These reviews, published in the current and previous issues of CPC, were designed to begin to outline a research agenda for the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network. In this paper, the authors reflect on the strengths and limitations of the framework. Perceived strengths are that the framework (a) facilitates systematic thinking about research options and priorities, (b) helps foster clear communication, (c) links science and practice, (d) may assist grant review panels to place proposed studies in context and (e) emphasizes important values. Perceived concerns include the following: (a) potential users are not familiar with the framework, (b) lack of clarity of definitions and classification criteria, (c) the utility of the framework is not immediately self-evident to potential users, (d) the framework lacks emphasis on environmental and policy interventions and (e) it is not clear how the values espoused are to be integrated with other dimensions of the framework. The concerns were seen as remediable. In short, the framework was seen to be valuable in its current form; refinement may enhance its value.</p>","PeriodicalId":79570,"journal":{"name":"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC","volume":"1 5","pages":"361-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critique of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's framework for cancer control.\",\"authors\":\"A J Cameron,&nbsp;K S Brown,&nbsp;R S Cohen,&nbsp;A M Leis,&nbsp;S Manske,&nbsp;K Olson,&nbsp;P G Ritvo\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper offers a critique of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's (NCIC) framework for cancer control. The critique has been prepared by researchers who used the framework to review the literature in 5 substantive areas. These reviews, published in the current and previous issues of CPC, were designed to begin to outline a research agenda for the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network. In this paper, the authors reflect on the strengths and limitations of the framework. Perceived strengths are that the framework (a) facilitates systematic thinking about research options and priorities, (b) helps foster clear communication, (c) links science and practice, (d) may assist grant review panels to place proposed studies in context and (e) emphasizes important values. Perceived concerns include the following: (a) potential users are not familiar with the framework, (b) lack of clarity of definitions and classification criteria, (c) the utility of the framework is not immediately self-evident to potential users, (d) the framework lacks emphasis on environmental and policy interventions and (e) it is not clear how the values espoused are to be integrated with other dimensions of the framework. The concerns were seen as remediable. In short, the framework was seen to be valuable in its current form; refinement may enhance its value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79570,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC\",\"volume\":\"1 5\",\"pages\":\"361-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对加拿大国家癌症研究所(NCIC)的癌症控制框架提出了批评。该评论是由研究人员编写的,他们使用该框架审查了5个实质性领域的文献。这些评论发表在CPC当前和以前的问题上,旨在开始概述社会行为癌症研究网络的研究议程。在本文中,作者反思了该框架的优势和局限性。公认的优势是,该框架(a)促进对研究选择和优先事项的系统思考,(b)有助于促进清晰的沟通,(c)将科学与实践联系起来,(d)可以帮助拨款审查小组将拟议的研究置于背景中,以及(e)强调重要的价值。人们所关注的问题包括:(a)潜在用户不熟悉框架,(b)定义和分类标准不明确,(c)框架的效用对潜在用户来说不是不言而喻的,(d)框架缺乏对环境和政策干预的强调,以及(e)不清楚如何将所支持的价值观与框架的其他方面结合起来。这些担忧被认为是可以补救的。简而言之,人们认为该框架以目前的形式是有价值的;精细化可以提高其价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Critique of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's framework for cancer control.

This paper offers a critique of the National Cancer Institute of Canada's (NCIC) framework for cancer control. The critique has been prepared by researchers who used the framework to review the literature in 5 substantive areas. These reviews, published in the current and previous issues of CPC, were designed to begin to outline a research agenda for the Sociobehavioural Cancer Research Network. In this paper, the authors reflect on the strengths and limitations of the framework. Perceived strengths are that the framework (a) facilitates systematic thinking about research options and priorities, (b) helps foster clear communication, (c) links science and practice, (d) may assist grant review panels to place proposed studies in context and (e) emphasizes important values. Perceived concerns include the following: (a) potential users are not familiar with the framework, (b) lack of clarity of definitions and classification criteria, (c) the utility of the framework is not immediately self-evident to potential users, (d) the framework lacks emphasis on environmental and policy interventions and (e) it is not clear how the values espoused are to be integrated with other dimensions of the framework. The concerns were seen as remediable. In short, the framework was seen to be valuable in its current form; refinement may enhance its value.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Have diagnostic practices contributed to trends in leukemia incidence and mortality among Canadians? An epidemiological review of red cell transfusions in cancer chemotherapy. Staging in cancer. The importance of alternative therapies to the public. Cancer patients' expectations of the role of family physicians in communication about complementary therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1