The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #71182

Richard Clapp, MPH, DSc¹, Molly Jacobs, MPH², Shelley Hearne, DrPH, MPH³, Polly Hoppin, ScD², Susan Polan, PhD⁴, and Sara Donahue². (1) Department of Environmental Health, Boston University, 80 East Concord St., Boston, MA 02118, (2) Environmental Health Program, Tellus Institute, 11 Arlington At., Boston, MA 02116, 617-266-5400, mjacobs@tellus.org, (3) Trust for America's Health, 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20005, (4) Trust for Americas Health, 1707 H. Street NW, 7th Floor, Washington DC, DC 20006

Cancer registries are often considered the nation’s strongest example of a coordinated, scientific approach to nationwide chronic disease tracking. However, despite the considerable achievements of cancer registry programs, individual registries vary in how well they are performing the most fundamental responsibilities expected of a public health surveillance system. This project examines the capacity of our nation’s cancer registries to meet current and future cancer surveillance needs. Building on methods developed for the Trust for America’s Health’s Report Card on Birth Defects and program standards developed by the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program for Cancer Registries, all 50 state cancer registries and the District of Columbia were surveyed and graded on critical elements of their operations and their overall ability to help better understand and prevent cancer. Elements assessed include data quality, completeness and timeliness; data availability to citizens and researchers; the scope and content of data linkages and legislative support. We present grades for each participating state cancer registry; highlight best practices for the effective collection and utilization of cancer registry data as well as institutional tensions and challenges; and outline recommendations and policy implications. Insights on the assessment methodology used and lessons learned are discussed.

Learning Objectives:

• Participants will be able to describe the current status of cancer surveillance nationwide; identify specific areas of cancer surveillance operations that if changed, will improve the system’s usefulness; and recognize current constraints facing cancer registries that limit their ability to achieve best practices.

Keywords: Cancer, Survey

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.