Coverage and quality of oral cancer information in selected popular press: May 1998 to July 2003.

OBJECTIVES: A 1998 study demonstrated a lack of coverage about oral cancer in the popular press between April 1987 and April 1997. Since that study, several oral cancer-related activities took place, many of which could have increased the media's attention to oral cancer. Therefore, this study analyzed coverage and quality of oral cancer information in selected popular press between May 1998 and July 2003. METHODS: Articles from magazines and newspapers were retrieved from three databases and were analyzed by specific topics and subtopics for adequacy of content and accuracy of information. Articles were categorized as either "primarily oral cancer-related" or "primarily tobacco-related." RESULTS: Sixty articles were identified, 39 of which were included in the analysis (14 magazines; 25 newspapers). Seventeen articles were "primarily oral cancer-related," and 22 were "primarily tobacco-related." Seventy-two percent of the articles mentioned at least one risk factor for oral cancer, the most common being tobacco use (69%). Far fewer articles noted alcohol (10%) or the combined use of tobacco and alcohol (5%) as risk factors. Only 8 percent of the articles recommended an oral cancer examination. CONCLUSION: Despite local and limited national efforts and activities aimed at increasing public awareness of oral cancer, the popular press coverage of those activities was minimal or nonexistent.

Use of skin and oral cancer examinations in the United States, 1998.

BACKGROUND: Findings from previous surveys suggest low utilization of oral cancer examinations, even though this examination is noninvasive. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the use of an oral cancer examination (OCE) and a skin cancer examination (SCE) in the past 12 months within the United States. Both exams are noninvasive and include a visual component. METHODS: Weighted data from the Adult Prevention Supplement of the 1998 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for adults 40 years of age or older were analyzed using SAS and SUDAAN. A ratio compared the percentage reporting an OCE (%OCE) with the percentage reporting a SCE (%SCE). RESULTS: The percentage having an OCE in the past year (13.8%) was very similar to the percentage having a SCE (13.5%) during that same period. With increasing age group, the %OCE/%SCE ratio varied inversely from 1.60 (C.I. 1.42-1.78) among persons 40-49 years to 0.62 (C.I. 0.55-0.69) among persons 70+ years. The ratio was similar in whites and blacks, males and females, and Hispanics and non-Hispanics. There was a positive gradient in the ratio by education and family income. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, less than 15% of the population is receiving either of these examinations, although the American Cancer Society recommends both of them on an annual basis for individuals 40 years of age and older. To increase detection of these cancers at early stages, extensive educational and media campaigns for the public and providers identifying risk factors and the availability of and the need for these examinations are required.

Oral cancer examinations among U.S. Hispanics in 1998.

BACKGROUND: An oral cancer examination (OCE) is crucial for early detection of oral and pharyngeal cancers. The objectives of this study were: 1) to estimate the percentages of Hispanics and Hispanic subgroups who reported having an OCE in the past 12 months; 2) to compare these groups with various Non-Hispanics; and 3) to evaluate the extents to which having an OCE might be explained by age, gender, education, family income, a recent visit to a dentist, and edentulism. METHODS: Descriptive and logistic regression analyses using data from the 1998 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: 6.4% of Hispanics and 14.5% of non-Hispanics had had an OCE in the past 12 months. After adjusting for age, gender, education, income, a dental visit, and edentulism, Hispanics were 1.7 times less likely than non-Hispanics to have had an OCE in the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer Hispanics are receiving OCEs relative to Non-Hispanics.

Maryland dental hygienists' views of oral cancer prevention and early detection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to obtain in-depth information on dental hygienists' awareness and opinions of oral cancer, oral cancer examinations, and related factors. These findings were intended to supplement a previous statewide survey of Maryland dental hygienists on the subject. METHODS: A professional focus group moderator conducted two focus groups in Maryland. Two types of focus groups were used--one face-to-face focus group session with 10 dental hygienists in the Baltimore area and one telephone focus group among 7 dental hygienists who practiced on the Eastern Shore. Criterion-purposeful sampling and qualitative content analysis were used. RESULTS: Six major themes emerged from the focus groups: dental hygienists' lack of awareness of Maryland's oral cancer statistics, level of training to provide oral cancer examinations, provision of oral cancer examinations and barriers for not providing them, reactions to Maryland surveys of dental hygienists and dentists, assessment of oral cancer risk factors, and interest in additional training. CONCLUSIONS: The focus groups provided in-depth information about why oral cancer examinations are or are not provided on a routine basis, as well as ideas for providing updates on oral cancer prevention and early detection for dental hygienists. Moreover, some participants recommended that updates on how to conduct an oral cancer examination be a requirement, as updates on infection control are now.

Maryland adults' perspectives on oral cancer prevention and early detection.

OVERVIEW: In any given 12-month period, Maryland ranks 27th among all states and the District of Columbia in estimated new cases of oral cancer. The state also has the seventh highest overall mortality rate for oral cancer. Because of earlier research indicating that Maryland adults had little knowledge and many misconceptions about oral cancer, the authors undertook a study to obtain in-depth information from Maryland adults 40 years of age or older on oral cancer, oral cancer examinations and factors associated with having an oral cancer examination. METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative descriptive study using information gathered from three focus groups consisting of nine, 10 and seven adults respectively, and which met at two locations. The authors hired a private focus group research firm, which randomly selected participants from a telephone list of local residents. A professionally trained moderator conducted all focus groups using a semistructured interview guide. RESULTS: Participants were struck by the fact that they rarely hear about this type of cancer. Many said that they never had had an oral cancer examination and did not know there was such a thing. Many participants also reported that they likely would be more comfortable discussing oral cancer with their physicians than with their dentists. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide additional in-depth insights to earlier work about Maryland adults' oral cancer knowledge, opinions and practices. The state plans to use this information to develop educational materials and interventions for the public to promote oral cancer prevention and early detection in Maryland. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Extensive public education about oral and pharyngeal cancers should be provided in dental offices and clinics, as well as in mass media of all types. More clinicians should include comprehensive oral cancer screenings in their oral examinations, and they should explain to patients what they are doing when they provide these screenings.