Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations, 18985-18986 [2013-07232]

Download as PDF 18985 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Notices ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS No. of respondents No. of responses per respondent Avg. burden per response (in hrs.) Total burden (in hrs.) Type of respondents Form name Cytology laboratories ........................ Cytology Workload Assessment ...... 996 1 30/60 498 Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 498 Dated: March 21, 2013. Ron A. Otten, Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 2013–07233 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Background and Brief Description DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60-Day-13–0861] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project A Controlled Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG): Preventing and Interrupting Teen Dating VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:20 Mar 27, 2013 Violence among At-Risk Middle and High School Students (OMB No. 0920– 0861, Expiration 8/31/2013)— Extension—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Jkt 229001 The purpose of this request is to obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to extend the data collection for A Controlled Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG): Preventing and Interrupting Teen Dating Violence among At-Risk Middle and High School Students (OMB No.0920–0861, Expiration 8/31/2013). CDC seeks a three-year extension in order to continue: 1) evaluating the effectiveness of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) in preventing and reducing teen dating violence and 2) comparing whether there are increased healthy conflict resolution skills reported by atrisk male and female middle and high school students participating in ERSG, compared to at-risk students in control schools who do not receive ERSG. The prevalence and consequences of teen dating violence make it a public health concern that requires early and effective prevention. To date, only three prevention strategies—Safe Dates, the Youth Relationships Project, and 4th R—have demonstrated reductions in dating violence behaviors in rigorous, controlled evaluations. In order to protect young people and build an evidence-base of effective prevention strategies, evaluation of additional programs is needed, including those programs currently in the field. The Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG; provided by SafePlace) program is currently being implemented in the Austin Independent School District and demonstrated promising results in an uncontrolled program evaluation, suggesting a controlled evaluation is warranted to more rigorously examine program effects. The extension request to the controlled evaluation of ERSG, which began in September 2010, has one primary aim and two exploratory aims. The primary aim is to evaluate the PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 effectiveness of ERSG to prevent and reduce teen dating violence and increase healthy conflict resolution skills reported by at-risk male and female middle and high school students compared to at-risk students in control schools who do not receive ERSG. The exploratory aims are: (1) To evaluate whether or not the effectiveness of ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a universal, school-wide prevention programs, and (2) To examine moderators and mediators of targeted and universal teen dating violence interventions, such as biological sex and history of abuse at intake. Completion of this study and examination of the primary and exploratory aims associated with it will help to fill a research gap by adding results to the evidence base regarding whether ERSG is a promising program for reducing the prevalence of teen dating violence and increasing knowledge of healthy relationship skills. The ongoing evaluation employs a quasi-experimental/non-randomized design in which a convenience sample of participants in schools receiving universal and/or targeted prevention services are compared to students in control schools in which no dating violence prevention services are available. Based on the previous two years of data collection for the ERSG evaluation, we anticipate that in the Austin Independent School District, 800 middle and high school students will undergo an intake assessment, of whom 600 at-risk students (i.e., students who indicate they have been exposed to violence in the home, community, or in dating or peer relationships) will be eligible for ERSG, of whom 400 will complete the baseline and completion assessments. Therefore, we will recruit 1,800 students (300 per year from intervention schools and 300 per year from control schools) over three waves of data collection. Of the 1,800 students recruited, we anticipate 1200 will have complete data at the end of the study period. Control schools have been selected that have characteristics (e.g., risk status, socio-economic status) similar to the Austin Independent School District intervention schools. E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM 28MRN1 18986 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Notices Survey items collect information about emotional, physical, and sexual peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration, use of healthy relationship skills, relationships characteristics, peer relationships, demographics, use of other teen dating violence prevention services, social desirability, and attitudes toward dating violence. These measures were developed in collaboration with scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and (1) are adapted from validated measures of teen dating violence, and (2) reflect the behaviors of interest and theory of change of Expect Respect. The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006) has also been included in the instrument packet and will be used to determine if subtype of aggression moderates response to intervention. Participation in this study is voluntary and intrusions to the No. of respondents No. of responses per respondent Response burden (in hours) Intake assessment ..................................... 400 1 15/60 100 Baseline Survey ......................................... Completion Survey ..................................... Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) .................. Intake assessment ..................................... 300 200 200 400 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15/60 300 200 200 100 Baseline Survey ......................................... Completion Survey ..................................... Follow-up Survey 1 (12 month) .................. ERSG Facilitator Program Implementation Fidelity Measure. ERSG Observational Program Implementation Fidelity Measure. Mid-Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators. End of Year Qualitative Interview with ERSG Facilitators. 300 200 200 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 15/60 300 200 200 4 1 16 15/60 4 8 1 45/60 6 8 1 1 8 ..................................................................... .................... ........................ ................ 1622 Type of respondent Control Schools (School rounding Austin. Form name districts sur- Independent School District) ...................... Intervention Schools (Austin Independent School District). ERSG Facilitator ......................................... ERSG Facilitator Supervisor ....................... ERSG Facilitator ......................................... ERSG Facilitator ......................................... Total ..................................................... Dated: March 21, 2013. Ron A. Otten, Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 2013–07232 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–18–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-13–0733] mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:20 Mar 27, 2013 Jkt 229001 participants’ sense of privacy will be minimized by only using data collected from students who have agreed for us to do so (through student assent and signed distribution of passive parental consent forms) and having the data coded in such a way to protect subjects’ confidentiality. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send comments to Ron Otten, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project CDC Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Hearing Screening and Follow-up Survey (OMB No. 0920– 0733, Expiration 06/30/2013)— Reinstatement with Change—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Total burden hours Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description The National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at CDC promotes the health of babies, children, and adults with disabilities. As part of these efforts the Center is actively involved in addressing hearing loss (HL) among newborns and infants. HL is a common birth defect that affects approximately 12,000 infants each year and, when left undetected, can result in developmental delays. As awareness about infant HL increases, so does the demand for accurate information about rates of screening, referral, loss to follow-up, and prevalence. This information is important for helping to ensure infants and children are receiving recommended screening and follow-up services, documenting the occurrence of differing degrees of HL among infants, and assessing progress towards national goals. These data will also assist state Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs with quality improvement activities and provide information that will be helpful in assessing the impact of federal initiatives. The public will be able to E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM 28MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18985-18986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07232]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[60-Day-13-0861]


Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and 
Recommendations

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on 
proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. 
To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a 
copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or 
send comments to Ron Otten, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 
30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways 
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology. Written comments should be received 
within 60 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

    A Controlled Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG): 
Preventing and Interrupting Teen Dating Violence among At-Risk Middle 
and High School Students (OMB No. 0920-0861, Expiration 8/31/2013)--
Extension--National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

    The purpose of this request is to obtain Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) approval to extend the data collection for A Controlled 
Evaluation of Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG): Preventing and 
Interrupting Teen Dating Violence among At-Risk Middle and High School 
Students (OMB No.0920-0861, Expiration 8/31/2013). CDC seeks a three-
year extension in order to continue: 1) evaluating the effectiveness of 
Expect Respect Support Groups (ERSG) in preventing and reducing teen 
dating violence and 2) comparing whether there are increased healthy 
conflict resolution skills reported by at-risk male and female middle 
and high school students participating in ERSG, compared to at-risk 
students in control schools who do not receive ERSG.
    The prevalence and consequences of teen dating violence make it a 
public health concern that requires early and effective prevention. To 
date, only three prevention strategies--Safe Dates, the Youth 
Relationships Project, and 4th R--have demonstrated reductions in 
dating violence behaviors in rigorous, controlled evaluations. In order 
to protect young people and build an evidence-base of effective 
prevention strategies, evaluation of additional programs is needed, 
including those programs currently in the field. The Expect Respect 
Support Groups (ERSG; provided by SafePlace) program is currently being 
implemented in the Austin Independent School District and demonstrated 
promising results in an uncontrolled program evaluation, suggesting a 
controlled evaluation is warranted to more rigorously examine program 
effects.
    The extension request to the controlled evaluation of ERSG, which 
began in September 2010, has one primary aim and two exploratory aims. 
The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of ERSG to prevent and 
reduce teen dating violence and increase healthy conflict resolution 
skills reported by at-risk male and female middle and high school 
students compared to at-risk students in control schools who do not 
receive ERSG. The exploratory aims are: (1) To evaluate whether or not 
the effectiveness of ERSG is enhanced by the presence of a universal, 
school-wide prevention programs, and (2) To examine moderators and 
mediators of targeted and universal teen dating violence interventions, 
such as biological sex and history of abuse at intake. Completion of 
this study and examination of the primary and exploratory aims 
associated with it will help to fill a research gap by adding results 
to the evidence base regarding whether ERSG is a promising program for 
reducing the prevalence of teen dating violence and increasing 
knowledge of healthy relationship skills.
    The ongoing evaluation employs a quasi-experimental/non-randomized 
design in which a convenience sample of participants in schools 
receiving universal and/or targeted prevention services are compared to 
students in control schools in which no dating violence prevention 
services are available.
    Based on the previous two years of data collection for the ERSG 
evaluation, we anticipate that in the Austin Independent School 
District, 800 middle and high school students will undergo an intake 
assessment, of whom 600 at-risk students (i.e., students who indicate 
they have been exposed to violence in the home, community, or in dating 
or peer relationships) will be eligible for ERSG, of whom 400 will 
complete the baseline and completion assessments. Therefore, we will 
recruit 1,800 students (300 per year from intervention schools and 300 
per year from control schools) over three waves of data collection. Of 
the 1,800 students recruited, we anticipate 1200 will have complete 
data at the end of the study period. Control schools have been selected 
that have characteristics (e.g., risk status, socio-economic status) 
similar to the Austin Independent School District intervention schools.

[[Page 18986]]

    Survey items collect information about emotional, physical, and 
sexual peer and dating violence victimization and perpetration, use of 
healthy relationship skills, relationships characteristics, peer 
relationships, demographics, use of other teen dating violence 
prevention services, social desirability, and attitudes toward dating 
violence. These measures were developed in collaboration with 
scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and (1) 
are adapted from validated measures of teen dating violence, and (2) 
reflect the behaviors of interest and theory of change of Expect 
Respect. The Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006) has 
also been included in the instrument packet and will be used to 
determine if subtype of aggression moderates response to intervention.
    Participation in this study is voluntary and intrusions to the 
participants' sense of privacy will be minimized by only using data 
collected from students who have agreed for us to do so (through 
student assent and signed distribution of passive parental consent 
forms) and having the data coded in such a way to protect subjects' 
confidentiality.
    There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Response
                                                                  No. of        No. of        burden     Total
         Type of  respondent                 Form name         respondents   responses per     (in       burden
                                                                              respondent      hours)     hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Schools (School districts     Intake assessment......          400               1      15/60        100
 surrounding Austin.
                                      Baseline Survey........          300               1          1        300
                                      Completion Survey......          200               1          1        200
Independent School District)........  Follow-up Survey 1 (12           200               1          1        200
                                       month).
Intervention Schools (Austin          Intake assessment......          400               1      15/60        100
 Independent School District).
                                      Baseline Survey........          300               1          1        300
                                      Completion Survey......          200               1          1        200
                                      Follow-up Survey 1 (12           200               1          1        200
                                       month).
ERSG Facilitator....................  ERSG Facilitator                   8               2      15/60          4
                                       Program Implementation
                                       Fidelity Measure.
ERSG Facilitator Supervisor.........  ERSG Observational                 1              16      15/60          4
                                       Program Implementation
                                       Fidelity Measure.
ERSG Facilitator....................  Mid-Year Qualitative               8               1      45/60          6
                                       Interview with ERSG
                                       Facilitators.
ERSG Facilitator....................  End of Year Qualitative            8               1          1          8
                                       Interview with ERSG
                                       Facilitators.
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  .......................  ...........  ..............  .........       1622
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: March 21, 2013.
Ron A. Otten,
Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate 
Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-07232 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P