Communicating Healthy Eating: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Achieving and maintaining wide-scale positive dietary and lifestyle change is a complex and formidable endeavor, given the current food environment. Moreover, for positive change to occur, nutrition messages should be communicated in a scientifically precise, yet practical and motivating manner. McDonald’s tries its best to adapt communication strategies to changing situation.In the paper, discussions regarding communication efforts and the best methods to take, deliver, and evaluate the impact of nutrition messages illustrated both the challenges and the opportunities McDonald’s is facing. The description of communication analysis, channels and strategies illustrate McDonald’s communication strategies in the near future.

A healthy lifestyle is fundamental for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Investment in primary prevention, including modification of health risk behaviors, could result in a 4-fold improvement in health outcomes compared with secondary prevention based on pharmacological treatment. The American Heart Association (AHA) emphasized the importance of lifestyle in its 2020 goals for cardiovascular health promotion and disease reduction. In addition to defining “cardiovascular health” based on criteria for blood pressure and biochemical markers (lipids and glycemia), the AHA Strategic Planning Committee further identified lifestyle characteristics of central importance: nutrition, physical activity, smoking, and maintenance of a healthy body weight.1 The World Health Organization estimated that ≈80% of NCDs could be prevented if 4 key lifestyle practices were followed: a healthy diet, being physically active, avoidance of tobacco, and alcohol intake in moderation.2 To support healthy lifestyle initiatives, major changes are necessary at the societal level to improve population health. Numerous strategies might help to create a culture that promotes and facilitates healthy behaviors, including creating laws and regulations, mounting large-scale public awareness and education campaigns, implementing local community programs, and providing individual counseling.3 Physicians are uniquely positioned to encourage individuals to adopt healthy lifestyle behaviors: Approximately 80% of Americans visit their primary care physician at least once a year. Physicians directly communicate with their patients during clinical encounters across numerous settings, and research indicates that patients highly value recommendations provided by their physicians.4,5 However, data further indicate that lifestyle counseling does not routinely occur in physicians’ offices, thereby representing a lost opportunity. Physicians report that they perform lifestyle counseling during ≈34% of clinic visits.4 Patients, in turn, report an even lower frequency of physician lifestyle counseling. For example, obese patients reported receiving physical activity and …

*These authors contributed to the devlopment and review of this manuscript but are unable to endorse the request for NIH funding. On Sept. 20, 2011, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) released its inaugural AACR Cancer Progress Report to commemorate the

How HHS Plans to Move Medical Innovations Forward: Summary of Task Force Report and Recommendations

President Biden Chooses Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, to Lead the NIH

A Personal Perspective on My Scientific Career

A DISSENTING VIEW FROM ONE WHO HAS KNOWN BOTH NIDA AND NIAAA

NCI asked to increase focus on minorities.

Journal Article Confessions of a team science funder Get access Robert T. Croyle, Ph.D. Robert T. Croyle, Ph.D. 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd., Room 6138, 20892-7338, Bethesda, MD, USA acroyler@mail.nih.gov Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Translational Behavioral Medicine, Volume 2, Issue 4, December 2012, Pages 531–534, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0179-7 Published: 21 November 2012

The ROOT Consortium was supported by National Cancer Institute grants R01-CA142996, R01-CA89085, R01-CA228198, and P20-CA233307. DH and OIO were also supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation. DH and GG were also partially supported by the National Cancer Institute (R03-CA227357 and R01-CA242929). AABC was supported by a Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Era of Hope Scholar Award to CAH [W81XWH-08-1-0383] and the Norris Foundation. Each of the participating AABC studies was supported by the following grants: MEC (National Institutes of Health grants R01-CA63464 and R37-CA54281); CARE (National Institute for Child Health and Development grant NO1-HD-3-3175, K05 CA136967); WCHS (U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command (USAMRMC) grant DAMD-17-01-0-0334, the National Institutes of Health grant R01-CA100598, and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation; SFBCS (National Institutes of Health grant R01-CA077305 and United States Army Medical Research Program grant DAMD17-96-6071); NC-BCFR (National Institutes of Health grant U01-CA069417); CBCS (National Institutes of Health Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Breast Cancer, grant number P50-CA58223, and Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, grant number P30-ES10126); PLCO (Intramural Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health); NBHS (National Institutes of Health grant R01-CA100374). The Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR) was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health under RFA-CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry and Principal Investigators. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the BCFR, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government or the BCFR. MP was supported by Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Tower Cancer Research Foundation, and a gift from Dr. Richard Balch. AMBER was supported by the National Cancer Institute grants P01-CA151135, R01-CA098663, R01-CA058420, UM1-CA164974, R01-CA100598, P50-CA58223, and the University Cancer Research Fund of North Carolina. JRP was supported by the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the Karin Grunebaum Foundation. Pathology data were obtained from numerous state cancer registries (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia). The results reported do not necessarily represent their views or the views of the National Institutes of Health. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118], the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST respectively), and by the European Community´s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. The Sister Study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005). GBHS authors acknowledge the research contributions of the Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory for their expertise, execution, and support of this research in the areas of project planning, wet laboratory processing of specimens, and bioinformatics analysis of generated data. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under NCI Contract No. 75N910D00024. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Roy Hertz

The 2014 fiscal year (FY) continued to be a challenging one for all federal agencies despite the many Congressional strategies proposed to address the U.S. budget deficit. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 passed by the House and Senate in December 2013 approved a two-year spending bill which cancelled the FY2014 and FY2015 required sequestration cuts (i.e., 4-5% National Institute of Health (NIH)/National Cancer Institute (NCI) budget reduction initiated on March 1, 2013), but extended the sequestration period through FY2023. This bill passage helped minimize any further budget reductions and resulted in a final FY2014 NIH budget of $29.9 billion and a NCI budget of $4.9 billion. Both NIH and NCI worked hard to maintain awarding the same number of NIH/NCI investigator-initiated R01 and exploratory R21 grants funded in FY2014 and similar to the level seen in FY2013 and previous years (see Tables 1 and 2). Since Congress only recently passed the 2015 spending bill in December 16, 2014, the final NIH and NCI budget appropriations for FY2015 remains unknown at this time and most likely will be similar to the FY2014 budget level. The NCI overall success and funding rates for unsolicited investigator-initiated R01 applications remained at 15%, while the success rate for exploratory R21 applications was 12% in FY2014 with similar rates seen in FY2013 (see Tables 1 and 2). The success rate for biomedical research applications in the Photodynamic Therapy and laser research field will be provided for the past few years. NIH provides numerous resources to help inform the extramural biomedical research community of new and current grant applicants about new grant policy changes and the grant submission and review processes.

Social Disconnection in Late Life Mental Illness – Commentary From the National Institute of Mental Health

NIH's New NCATS: Bridging the Gulf From Bench to Bedside

The recently released National Institutes of Health Plan for Social Work Research (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003) is evidence of two important trends in the field of social work. One is the growing recognition of the value of social work research for promoting and preserving health in our country. The other is the inclination and capacity for NASW to collaborate with and support other professional social work organizations. In 2003 the Congressional Appropriations Committee commended the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Cancer Institute, and the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research for their recognition of social work research's important contributions to the nation's health. They urged to develop a social work research plan that outlines research priorities, as well as a research agenda, across NIH Institutes and Centers (Senate Report 107-216, 2002, p. 155). In the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plan social work research is defined as studies of the individual, family, group, community, policy and/or organizational level, focusing across the life span on prevention, intervention, treatment, aftercare, and rehabilitation of acute and chronic conditions, including the effects of policy on social work practice. This definition acknowledges that social work research often examines cross-cutting issues, such as children's mental health in juvenile justice settings, aging and caregiving, or community services to diverse cultural groups. Key social work organizations supported development of the report and have been responsive since its release. NASW participated through ANSWER (Action Network for Social Work Education and Research), our advocacy coalition of social work organizations, including NASW, CSWE (Council on Social Work Education), BPD (Baccalaureate Program Directors), SSWR (Society for Social Work Research), IASWR (Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research), GADE (Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education), and NADD (National Association of Deans and Directors). All groups encouraged Congress to make the request to NIH and to develop a plan. The report specifies proposals in the areas of social work research, research infrastructure and training, and information dissemination and community outreach. The recommendations include the following: social work research * to establish a Social Work Research Committee, a standing committee internal to NIH, to assess and initiate activities to foster social work research at NIH * to expand outreach activities designed to increase the submission of investigator-initiated research focused on social work practice related to concepts relevant to missions of each NIH Institute * to develop a program announcement entitled Developmental Research on Social Work Practice and Concepts in Health to integrate social work-specific perspectives and concepts into the NIH portfolio and to expand a social work-relevant scientific base that would be useful to allied health professionals research infrastructure and training * to develop a mechanism whereby social work researchers could be added to ongoing NIH research projects to increase mentoring and research training and to improve their competitiveness for NIH training. …