Orientation Virtual Meeting National Advisory Committee for the National Health Security Preparedness Index

Refining the measures and methodologies used within the National Health Security Preparedness Index will allow users to make more meaningful comparisons of preparedness levels across U.S. geographic areas and to assess changes in preparedness over time

Annual Report of the National Coordinating Center for Public Health Services & Systems Research, Year Four

The National Coordinating Center for Public Health Services and Systems Research (PHSSR), together with the Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRN) Program, works to expand the production and application of evidence on how best to organize, finance and deliver public health strategies that improve population health. The Center designs and conducts research studies, provides technical assistance and direction for other researchers across the U.S., develops methodological advances in measurement and analysis, and accelerates the translation and dissemination of research findings for policy and practice stakeholders

The National Health Security Preparedness Index: National Advisory Committee Meeting

This meeting of the National Advisory Committee for the National Health Security Preparedness Index program discussed strategies for improving the theoretical framework, measures, and analytic methodologies used in assessing and comparing preparedness levels across U.S. states and the nation as a whole

Summary of Results from the 2016 National Health Security Preparedness Index

The National Health Security Preparedness Index tracks the nation’s progress in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters and other large-scale emergencies that pose risks to health and well-being in the United States. Because health security is a responsibility shared by many different stakeholders in government and society, the Index combines measures from multiple sources and perspectives to offer a broad view of the health protections in place for nation as a whole and for each U.S. state. The Index identifies strengths as well as gaps in the protections needed to keep people safe and healthy in the face of disasters, and it tracks how these protections vary across the U.S. and change over time. Results from the 2016 release of the Index, containing data from 2013 through 2015, reveal that preparedness is improving overall, but protections remain uneven across the U.S., and they are losing strength in some critical areas

Summary of Proposed Updates to the National Health Security Preparedness Index for 2015-2016

This report describes proposed updates in methodology and measures for the 2015-16 release of the National Health Security Preparedness Inde

Session 2A: \u3cem\u3ePanel Discussion: Developing Post-Incident Risk Communication Guidelines for Intentional Water Contamination Events\u3c/em\u3e

This panel will discuss emerging findings from a US EPA-funded research project intended to improve risk communication for post-incident decontamination and clearance activities associated with intentional contamination of a water system. The session will center around Phase II of the study, which focuses on extending the Phase I case study findings that were presented at last year’s KWRRI Symposium, to identify ways in which disparate stakeholder groups in metropolitan areas differentially perceive risk and subsequent risk communication efforts

Session 2A: \u3cem\u3eDeveloping Post-Incident Risk Communication Guidelines for Intentional Water Contamination Events\u3c/em\u3e

This panel will discuss a US EPA-funded research project intended to improve risk communication for post-incident decontamination and clearance activities associated with intentional contamination of a water system. The study incorporates two complementary methods conducted in successive phases. The recently-completed first phase included robust case study analyses of risk communication related to recent and significant contamination incidents. The second phase, which is currently underway, will identify ways in which disparate stakeholder groups in a metropolitan area differentially perceive risk and subsequent risk communication efforts

Genome-Wide Meta-Analyses of Breast, Ovarian, and Prostate Cancer Association Studies Identify Multiple New Susceptibility Loci Shared by at Least Two Cancer Types.

UNLABELLED: Breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers are hormone-related and may have a shared genetic basis, but this has not been investigated systematically by genome-wide association (GWA) studies. Meta-analyses combining the largest GWA meta-analysis data sets for these cancers totaling 112,349 cases and 116,421 controls of European ancestry, all together and in pairs, identified at P < 10(-8) seven new cross-cancer loci: three associated with susceptibility to all three cancers (rs17041869/2q13/BCL2L11; rs7937840/11q12/INCENP; rs1469713/19p13/GATAD2A), two breast and ovarian cancer risk loci (rs200182588/9q31/SMC2; rs8037137/15q26/RCCD1), and two breast and prostate cancer risk loci (rs5013329/1p34/NSUN4; rs9375701/6q23/L3MBTL3). Index variants in five additional regions previously associated with only one cancer also showed clear association with a second cancer type. Cell-type-specific expression quantitative trait locus and enhancer-gene interaction annotations suggested target genes with potential cross-cancer roles at the new loci. Pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment of death receptor signaling genes near loci with P < 10(-5) in the three-cancer meta-analysis. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052-67. ©2016 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932.The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), the Prostate Cancer Association Group to Investigate Cancer Associated Alterations in the Genome (PRACTICAL), and the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) that contributed breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer data analyzed in this study were in part funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A10118 and C1287/A12014 for BCAC; C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C5047/A3354, C5047/A10692, and C16913/A6135 for PRACTICAL; and C490/A6187, C490/A10119, C490/A10124, C536/A13086, and C536/A6689 for OCAC]. Funding for the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) infrastructure came from: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, and C8197/A16565), the US National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and the Post-Cancer GWAS Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112), the US Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund [with donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07)]. Additional financial support for contributing studies is documented under Supplementary Financial Support.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Association for Cancer Research via http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-122

Commentary: Changing the Channel: Public Health Communication in the 21st Century

This commentary asserts the need for research examining the use and efficacy of social media as a tool for meeting public health stakeholders’ information needs. The author points to several potential research questions for the field, situates studies addressing these questions within the PHSSR Research Agenda, and introduces the work of Harris et al. that is included in this issue of Frontiers. The commentary closes with a call for horizontal stakeholder communication that supports evidence-based decision-making