Piloting Performance Measurement for Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs

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

doi:10.1097/phh.0b013e3181fd4d19

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their analysis, 60% of programs reported that their partners had implemented at least one priority strategy from their jurisdiction’s cancer control plan from June 2008 through June 2009. Rochester and colleagues, in their pilot test of a 2007 NCCCP grantee performance measurement worksheet, also reported that 60% of programs indicated that their partners had implemented interventions ( 25 ). These discrepancies may be related to the fact that we asked CCC program directors to refer partners who collaborate with them in the selection and use of EBPs, thus providing us with a sampling pool more likely to include partners involved with implementation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners’ Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices

Steele

Rose

Townsend³

et al. 2015

Prev. Chronic Dis.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionNational Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardees are encouraged to work with partners (eg, nonprofit organizations) to develop and implement plans to reduce the cancer burden in their jurisdictions using evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, the extent of EBP use among awardees and their partners is not well understood.MethodsFrom March through July 2012, we conducted a web-based survey of program partners referred by NCCCP program directors who were involved in implementation of cancer control plans.ResultsApproximately 53% of referred partners (n = 83) completed surveys, 91.6% of whom represented organizations. Most partners reported involvement in helping to identify (80.5%), adapt (81.7%), implement (90.4%), and evaluate (81.9%) EBPs. The factors rated most frequently as very important when selecting EBPs were “consistent with our organization’s mission” (89.2%) and “cost-effective” (81.9%). Although most respondents said that their organizations understood the importance of using EBPs (84.3%) and had adequate access to cancer registry data (74.7%), few reported having sufficient financial resources to develop new EBPs (7.9%). The most frequently mentioned benefit of using EBPs was that they are proven to work. Resource limitations and difficulty adapting EBPs for specific populations and settings were challenges.ConclusionsOur findings help indicate how NCCCP partners are involved in using EBPs and can guide ongoing efforts to encourage the use of EBPs for cancer control. The challenges of using EBPs that partners identified highlight the need to improve strategies to translate cancer prevention and control research into practice in real-world settings and for diverse populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners’ Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices

Steele

Rose

Townsend³

et al. 2015

Prev. Chronic Dis.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Development and pilot testing of the NCCCP performance measurement system has been described previously. 17 In 2008, the NCCCP performance measurement system was refined to clarify survey questions and strengthen indicators to more accurately measure activities and outcomes. Additional refinement of the survey occurred in 2009 and 2010 in response to program directors’ and program staff feedback and the need to collect data for emerging programmatic processes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2007, a set of performance measures was developed and pilot tested with 61 NCCCP awardees 17 to measure performance in the five-year funding cycle spanning 2007-2012. To begin the process, data were systematically collected across all awardees to describe attributes of the NCCCP to invested stakeholders, document current progress, and foster quality improvement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…All these factors influence the level of funding each participant receives from CDC. Evaluation efforts at the national level in the early years of the program, including the development and fielding of a performance measurement system and cancer plan assessment tool, provided valuable information regarding technical assistance needs and improvements that could be made across all participants [16][17][18]. Results from surveys in 2009 and 2010 showed that a majority of programs had successfully implemented at least one community-or organization-level change strategy; however, not all programs were using only evidence-based interventions, and there were few participants linking their activities to cancer impact [19].…”

Section: The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combating Cancer Through Public Health Practice in the United States: An In-Depth Look at the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program

Stewart¹,

Hayes²,

Moore³

et al. 2018

Public Health - Emerging and Re-Emerging Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer is the second leading cause of the death in the United States (U.S.). The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) is a national, public health practice program funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The NCCCP has been planning and implementing interventions to reduce the burden of cancer since 1998. Interventions are implemented across three areas primary prevention, early detection, and survivorship using health systems and environmental changes to promote sustainable cancer control. The aim of this chapter is to provide a summary of the NCCCP, and highlight specific examples of interventions and successes to aid cancer planning in other countries. Cancer plan analyses show that all NCCCP participant cancer plans address reducing tobacco use for cancer prevention and 98% contain activities to increase colorectal cancer screening. The vast majority implement activities to improve the quality of life following a cancer diagnosis (94%). Relatively fewer cancer plans contain activities to reduce radon exposure (42%), promote human papilloma virus vaccination (62%), and incorporate the use of genomics in cancer control (56%). The examples of NCCCP activities demonstrate success in controlling cancer and other non-communicable diseases through public health practice.

show abstract

Piloting Performance Measurement for Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners’ Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices

Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners’ Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices

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

Combating Cancer Through Public Health Practice in the United States: An In-Depth Look at the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About