The article ‘DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure’ is a study conducted by Barbara A. Cohn, Mary S. Wolff, Piera M. Cirillo and Robert I. Sholtz. This study sought to identify whether exposing young women to DDT when the DDT is at peak is likely to result to development of breast cancer. Cohn et al (2007) conducted this study prospectively using a nested-control approach.
The sample constituted of women who were participating in the Child Health and Development Studies (CDHS) in Oakland, California. These women were members of the Kaiser Permanente Health Plan and had gone for obstetric services between 1959 and 1967 (this time spans the period prior to banning of DDT use and a period when DDT use was very high). Selection of the subjects adhered to ethical guidelines including informed participant’s consent as required of human participants in research studies.
To identify breast cancer cases, the authors of this study, the California Cancer registry and California Vital Status Records were referred and 133 cases of breast cancer patients or person who died of breast cancer prior to reaching the age of 50 years were identified for the study. After assaying blood samples collected from the women within three days after giving birth, it was identified that 129 cases had breast cancer prior to reaching the age of 50 years. By selecting 129 controls who matched with the birth years of the cases, serum assays for p.
p’DDT showed that women who were born after 1931 had a 5 times likelihood of developing breast cancer and at the time when DDT use was at peak, the girls were usually aged below 20 years. No relationship between DDT exposure and breast cancer for women who were never exposed to breast cancer prior to 14 years of age. Pamela C. Regan and Ramani S. Durvasula conducted a study titled: predictors of breast cancer screening in Asian and Latina university students. This study involved 240 Asians (165 Latinas and 75 Asians) and Latina women aged 18 years and over. The women were recruited from a university in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area.
The authors of the study had the study approved by necessary ethical committees as required of human participant studies including participant’s informed consent. Using questionnaires, the authors of this study assessed the subjects’ household income, ethnicity, and age as demographic measures. The subjects also responded to questions that sought health-related beliefs more so concerning breast cancer screening. Other important measures included sexual experience, cancer knowledge, family history of cancer, acculturation and breast cancer screening behavior.
Using regression analyses, Regan and Durvasula (2008) are able to predict whether Latino and Asian university students are likely to have breast cancer screening. In the article ‘advancing social workers responsiveness to health disparities: the case of breast cancer screening’ is authored by Mary Alpeter, James Mitchell and Joan Pennell. This takes a descriptive and an exploratory approach. The sample for the 4-year prospective study was selected using a probability sampling method thus recruiting 1,046 women participants aged 18 years and above who had no symptoms of breast cancer.
The sample was made of white and African American women only from eastern North Carolina in two rural counties. By the end of the 4-year project, there were only 853 respondents. Several predictor variables were used to determine the likelihood of women seeking breast cancer screening. These included age, cultural beliefs and social economic status among others. Using regression analyses, Alpeter, Mitchell and Pennell (2005) were able to predict the likelihood of women in the study seeking breast cancer screening as well as breast cancer awareness.
From the three studies, the first study by Cohn et al (2007) is more reliable and valid since it is a primary research and is more experimental than predictive. The study follows all the ethical procedures required when dealing with human participants in research. Furthermore, the prospective nature of the study makes the results appear more valid. The third study by Alpeter, Mitchell and Pennell (2005) is questionable since there is no evidence of consent obtained from the subjects or adherence to ethical guidelines. Furthermore, it is of secondary nature and heavily relies on literature rather than actual findings. References Alpeter, M.
, Mitchell, J. and Pennell, J. (2005). Advancing social workers responsiveness to health disparities: the case of breast cancer screening. Health and Social Work, 30(3): 221+. Web. 15, July 2010. Questia. com. Cohn, B. A. , Wolff, M. S. , Cirillo, P. M. and Sholtz, R. I. (2007). DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(3): 201+. Web. 15, July 2010. Questia. com. Regan, P. and Durvasula, R. S. (2008). Predictors of breast cancer screening in Asian and Latina university students. College Student Journal, 42(4): 1152+. Web. 15, July 2010. Questia. com.