Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report From the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors' needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Occupational practices and the making of health news: a national survey of US Health and medical science journalists.

News media coverage of health topics can frame and heighten the salience of health-related issues, thus influencing the public's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Through their routine coverage of scientific developments, news media are a critical intermediary in translating research for the public, patients, practitioners, and policymakers. Until now, little was known about how health and medical science reporters and editors initiate, prioritize, and develop news stories related to health and medicine. We surveyed 468 reporters and editors representing 463 local and national broadcast and print media outlets to characterize individual characteristics and occupational practices leading to the development of health and medical science news. Our survey revealed that 70% of respondents had bachelor's degrees; 8% were life sciences majors in college. Minorities are underrepresented in health journalism; 97% of respondents were non-Hispanic and 93% were White. Overall, initial ideas for stories come from a "news source" followed by press conferences or press releases. Regarding newsworthiness criteria, the "potential for public impact" and "new information or development" are the major criteria cited, followed by "ability to provide a human angle" and "ability to provide a local angle." Significant differences were seen between responses from reporters vs. editors and print vs. broadcast outlets.