military service members
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

443
(FIVE YEARS 177)

H-INDEX

29
(FIVE YEARS 4)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Weygandt ◽  
Kristyn Robling ◽  
Liza-Ann Whitaker ◽  
Kristen McPherson ◽  
Micah Hartwell ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Introduction Approximately 3% of invasive U.S. cancer diagnoses are made among veterans in a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic each year, while VA patients only comprise about 1.9% of the U.S. population. Although some research has shown that veterans have higher incidence rates of cancer compared to civilians, evidence is sparse regarding possible disparities in rates of cancer screening between these populations. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare differences in rates of screening for colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers between current and former U.S. Military service members and civilians. Methods Using the data extracted from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the rates of cancer screening among current and former U.S. Military service members compared to civilians from self-reported surveys assessing when individuals had been screened for colorectal or lung cancer among all participants and breast and cervical cancer among women participants. Persons greater than 25 years of age were included in the cervical cancer screening, 50 years of age for colon cancer screening, and 40 years of age for the breast cancer screening—the latter based on recommendations from the American Cancer Society. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine the adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of current and former U.S. Military service members receiving screening compared to civilians, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and health care coverage. Results Current and former U.S. Military service members accounted for 2.6% of individuals included for the cervical cancer screening analysis, 2.2% for the breast cancer screening analyses, nearly 10% of the lung cancer screening, and 15% of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening analyses. Prevalence of screening was higher for current and former U.S. Military service members among lung cancer and CRC. When controlling for age, race, education, and health care coverage, current and former U.S. Military service members were statistically more likely to be screened for CRC (ARR: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.04–1.07) and lung cancer (ARR: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.15–1.52). The odds of having completed a cervical or breast cancer screening were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion Our study showed that current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to complete CRC and lung cancer screenings, while no significant difference existed between each population with regard to cervical and breast cancer screenings. This is one of the few studies that have directly compared cancer screening usage among civilians and current and former U.S. Military service members. Although current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to receive several cancer screenings, improvements can still be made to remove barriers and increase screening usage due to the disproportionate rates of cancer mortality in this population. These solutions should be comprehensive—addressing personal, organizational, and societal barriers—to improve prognosis and survival rates among current and former U.S. Military service members.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Margret Ervin ◽  
Michael C. Schubert ◽  
Americo A. Migliaccio ◽  
Jamie Perin ◽  
Hamadou Coulibaly ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A clinical pattern of damage to the auditory, visual, and vestibular sensorimotor systems, known as multi-sensory impairment, affects roughly 2% of the US population each year. Within the population of US military service members exposed to mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), 15–44% will develop multi-sensory impairment following a mild traumatic brain injury. In the US civilian population, multi-sensory impairment-related symptoms are also a common sequela of damage to the vestibular system and affect ~ 300–500/100,000 population. Vestibular rehabilitation is recognized as a critical component of the management of multi-sensory impairment. Unfortunately, the current clinical practice guidelines for the delivery of vestibular rehabilitation are not evidence-based and primarily rely on expert opinion. The focus of this trial is gaze stability training, which represents the unique component of vestibular rehabilitation. The aim of the Incremental Velocity Error as a New Treatment in Vestibular Rehabilitation (INVENT VPT) trial is to assess the efficacy of a non-invasive, incremental vestibular adaptation training device for normalizing the response of the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Methods The INVENT VPT Trial is a multi-center randomized controlled crossover trial in which military service members with mTBI and civilian patients with vestibular hypofunction are randomized to begin traditional vestibular rehabilitation or incremental vestibular adaptation and then cross over to the alternate intervention after a prescribed washout period. Vestibulo-ocular reflex function and other functional outcomes are measured to identify the best means to improve the delivery of vestibular rehabilitation. We incorporate ecologically valid outcome measures that address the common symptoms experienced in those with vestibular pathology and multi-sensory impairment. Discussion The INVENT VPT Trial will directly impact the health care delivery of vestibular rehabilitation in patients suffering from multi-sensory impairment in three critical ways: (1) compare optimized traditional methods of vestibular rehabilitation to a novel device that is hypothesized to improve vestibulo-ocular reflex performance, (2) isolate the ideal dosing of vestibular rehabilitation considering patient burden and compliance rates, and (3) examine whether recovery of the vestibulo-ocular reflex can be predicted in participants with vestibular symptoms. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03846830. Registered on 20 February 2019.


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-390
Author(s):  
Fallon B. Ringer ◽  
Megan L. Rogers ◽  
Matthew C. Podlogar ◽  
Carol Chu ◽  
Anna R. Gai ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lilian G. Perez ◽  
Lu Dong ◽  
Robin Beckman ◽  
Sarah O. Meadows

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document