Cancer Plan Index

Rochester, Phyllis; Adams, Elizabeth; Porterfield, Deborah S; Holden, Debra J; McAleer, Kelly; Steele, C. Brooke

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e318215a603

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Like technical assistance, there is limited literature to suggest facilitation as a well-planned, supportive, and proactive role to enhance implementation of EBIs and further research is needed to explore the role of external facilitation as described in this study [27]. Although there is limited research in this context, a recent review of the comprehensive cancer plans suggests that there were limited details provided and several key component areas such as implementation processes were not represented in the action plans [28]. During the content analysis, this study also found limited details in the action plans developed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control

Moreland-Russell

Adsul

Nasir

et al. 2018

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In 2015–2016, the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership provided technical assistance workshops to support 22 cancer coalitions in increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in their local communities. As national efforts continue to invest in providing technical assistance, there is a current gap in understanding its use as a strategy to accelerate implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technical assistance on the participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills for implementing EBIs in their local context and enhancing state team collaboration. Methods Data were collected August-November 2017 using web-based questionnaires from 44 HPV workshop participants and 66 CRC workshop participants. Results Both HPV vaccination and CRC screening workshop participants reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to implementing EBIs in their local state context. Several participants reported increased abilities in communicating and coordinating with partners in their states and utilizing additional implementation strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake and CRC screening rates. Conclusions Findings from this study suggest that providing technical assistance to members of comprehensive cancer control coalitions is useful in promoting collaborations and building capacity for implementing EBIs for cancer prevention and control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control

Moreland-Russell

Adsul

Nasir

et al. 2018

Cancer Causes Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 To aid NCCCP programs and their coalitions with evaluation efforts, a domain in which results from performance measures indicate an area that needs improvement, an evaluation toolkit and cancer plan index planning tool have been developed and disseminated. 29 These tools were used by one NCCCP program to successfully conduct an outcome evaluation of their cancer plan, 30 and their findings may be used to refine future cancer plan implementation efforts. Additionally, an external performance measures advisory workgroup consisting of CCC program directors working in state/tribal/Pacific Island jurisdiction health departments was convened to provide input into data interpretation and considerations for future refinement of measures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does a Performance Measurement System Tell Us About the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program?

Townsend

Moore

Mulder

et al. 2015

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) performance measurement system seeks to understand both the processes that funded programs undertake with their respective coalitions to implement the objectives of their cancer plans and outcomes of those efforts. Objective To identify areas of achievement and technical assistance needs of NCCCP awardees. Design Program performance was assessed through surveys completed by program directors on performance indicators in 2009 and 2010 and queries from a web-based management information system in 2011 and 2012. Setting Programs funded by CDC’s NCCCP. Participants 69 programs. Main Outcome Measure(s) The key performance measures assessed were: inclusion of diverse partners and key sectors in cancer coalitions; partners’ involvement in activities; receiving in-kind resources from partners; using evidence-based interventions and data for setting priorities; conducting program evaluation; using community- or organization-level strategies to address cancer control efforts; and demonstrating progress toward achieving health outcomes. Results Most programs reported having active coalitions that represent diverse organizational sectors. Nearly all programs routinely assess the burden of cancer. In-kind resources to implement activities peaked at $64,716 in the second year of a five year funding cycle, and declined in subsequent project years. By year 3, over 70% of programs reported having an evaluation plan. While programs reported that nearly two-thirds of their interventions were evidence-based, some programs implemented non-evidence-based interventions. A majority of programs successfully used at least one community- or organization-level change strategy. However, many programs did not incorporate objectives linked to health outcomes as they reported progress in implementing interventions. Conclusions: While NCCCP programs were strong at building and maintaining infrastructure, some programs may need additional technical assistance to increase the adoption of evidence-based interventions, develop solid and responsive evaluation plans, and better link efforts to population-based measures that demonstrate impact toward reducing the burden of cancer.

show abstract

“…CCC plans are intended to be data-driven, documented strategies that address the entire cancer control continuum by using CDC-recommended goals and objectives. CDC published an assessment tool for CCC programs to determine whether plans have clear goals, objectives, and recommended strategies (24). Researchers conducted an in-depth assessment of 66 published plans and found that most programs provided relatively comprehensive descriptions of goals, objectives, and strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Update on Tobacco Control Initiatives in Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans

Dunne¹,

Henderson²,

Stewart³

et al. 2013

Prev. Chronic Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionComprehensive cancer control (CCC) coalitions address tobacco use, the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, through formal plans to guide tobacco control activities and other cancer prevention strategies. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (Best Practices) and The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide) are used to assist with this effort. We examined CCC plans to determine the extent to which they followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) tobacco control and funding recommendations.MethodsWe obtained 69 CCC plans, current as of August 1, 2011, to determine which CDC recommendations from Best Practices and The Community Guide were incorporated. Data were abstracted through a content review and key word search and then summarized across the plans with dichotomous indicators. Additionally, we analyzed plans for inclusion of tobacco control funding goals and strategies.ResultsCCC plans incorporated a mean 4.5 (standard deviation [SD], 2.1) of 5 recommendations from Best Practices and 5.2 (SD, 0.9) of 10 recommendations from The Community Guide. Two-thirds of plans (66.7%) addressed funding for tobacco control as a strategy or action item; 47.8% of those plans (31.9% of total) defined a specific, measurable funding goal.ConclusionAlthough most CCC plans follow CDC-recommended tobacco control recommendations and funding levels, not all recommendations are addressed by every plan and certain recommendations are addressed in varying numbers of plans. Clearer prioritization of tobacco control recommendations by CDC may improve the extent to which they are followed and therefore maximize their public health benefit.

show abstract

Cancer Plan Index

Abstract: Areas of the CPI with low average component scores should stimulate technical assistance to the funded programs, either to increase program activities or to increase discussion of key activities in the plan.

Cited by 16 publications

References 1 publication

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control

What Does a Performance Measurement System Tell Us About the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program?

An Update on Tobacco Control Initiatives in Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About