Dornell Pete, Paige E Farris, Prajakta Adsul, Jennifer W Bea, Dylan Decker, Jalisa Ingram, Jason Semprini, Hailey Baker, Monica Yellowhair, Cecily Blackwater, Craig Dee, Katherine J Briant, Myra Parker, Whitney E Zahnd, Sarah H Nash
{"title":"The inclusion of tribes and American Indian and Alaska Native People in State comprehensive cancer control plans.","authors":"Dornell Pete, Paige E Farris, Prajakta Adsul, Jennifer W Bea, Dylan Decker, Jalisa Ingram, Jason Semprini, Hailey Baker, Monica Yellowhair, Cecily Blackwater, Craig Dee, Katherine J Briant, Myra Parker, Whitney E Zahnd, Sarah H Nash","doi":"10.1007/s10552-025-01981-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>State and District Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) plans often do not include priorities for all individuals within their state or district borders. In particular, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people experience persistent cancer disparities, yet their inclusion in CCC plans has not been examined. Our study systematically reviewed state and district CCC plans for the inclusion of Tribal-specific cancer control strategies and priorities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A collaborative team of researchers from Tribal serving organizations, cancer centers, and academic institutions conducted a content analysis of state CCC plans to assess terms, concepts, context, and goals related to Tribal populations across twelve domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-three percent (n = 37) of state CCC plans addressed at least one of twelve domain criteria, while 14 states (27%) did not mention Tribal data or priorities. Specifically, the terms \"Indigenous or Native\" (n = 29) or \"American Indian, Indian Country, Reservations, or Indian Health Service\" (n = 27) were referenced most often. Three states met the highest domain criteria (New Mexico, California, Montana). Six states with federally recognized tribes within their borders did not meet any domains (Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Texas, Virginia).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By highlighting state and Tribal CCC plans' best practices and incorporating Tribal priorities within state and district CCC plans and programs, we underscore the importance of addressing cancer in Tribal populations across the U.S. and offer examples of inclusive CCC plan development and implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9432,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Causes & Control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Causes & Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-025-01981-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: State and District Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) plans often do not include priorities for all individuals within their state or district borders. In particular, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people experience persistent cancer disparities, yet their inclusion in CCC plans has not been examined. Our study systematically reviewed state and district CCC plans for the inclusion of Tribal-specific cancer control strategies and priorities.
Methods: A collaborative team of researchers from Tribal serving organizations, cancer centers, and academic institutions conducted a content analysis of state CCC plans to assess terms, concepts, context, and goals related to Tribal populations across twelve domains.
Results: Seventy-three percent (n = 37) of state CCC plans addressed at least one of twelve domain criteria, while 14 states (27%) did not mention Tribal data or priorities. Specifically, the terms "Indigenous or Native" (n = 29) or "American Indian, Indian Country, Reservations, or Indian Health Service" (n = 27) were referenced most often. Three states met the highest domain criteria (New Mexico, California, Montana). Six states with federally recognized tribes within their borders did not meet any domains (Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Texas, Virginia).
Conclusion: By highlighting state and Tribal CCC plans' best practices and incorporating Tribal priorities within state and district CCC plans and programs, we underscore the importance of addressing cancer in Tribal populations across the U.S. and offer examples of inclusive CCC plan development and implementation.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Causes & Control is an international refereed journal that both reports and stimulates new avenues of investigation into the causes, control, and subsequent prevention of cancer. By drawing together related information published currently in a diverse range of biological and medical journals, it has a multidisciplinary and multinational approach.
The scope of the journal includes: variation in cancer distribution within and between populations; factors associated with cancer risk; preventive and therapeutic interventions on a population scale; economic, demographic, and health-policy implications of cancer; and related methodological issues.
The emphasis is on speed of publication. The journal will normally publish within 30 to 60 days of acceptance of manuscripts.
Cancer Causes & Control publishes Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Opinions, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor which will have direct relevance to researchers and practitioners working in epidemiology, medical statistics, cancer biology, health education, medical economics and related fields. The journal also contains significant information for government agencies concerned with cancer research, control and policy.