CONTEXT: Rigorous outcome evaluation is essential to monitor progress toward achieving goals and objectives in comprehensive cancer control plans (CCCPs). OBJECTIVE: This report describes a systematic approach for an initial outcome evaluation of a CCCP. DESIGN: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluation framework, the evaluation focused on (1) organizing cancer plan objectives by anatomic site and risk factors, (2) rating each according to clarity and data availability, (3) the subsequent evaluation of clearly stated objectives with available outcome data, and (4) mapping allocation of implementation grants for local cancer control back to the CCCP objectives. SETTING: South Carolina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation outcomes included (1) a detailed account of CCCP objectives by topic area, (2) a systematic rating of level of clarity and availability of data to measure CCCP objectives, (3) a systematic assessment of attainment of measurable objectives, and (4) a summary of how cancer control grant funds were allocated and mapped to CCCP objectives. RESULTS: A system was developed to evaluate the extent to which cancer plan objectives were measurable as written with data available for monitoring. Twenty-one of 64 objectives (33%) in the South Carolina's CCCP were measurable as written with data available. Of the 21 clear and measurable objectives, 38% were not met, 38% were partially met, and 24% were met. Grant allocations were summarized across CCCP chapters, revealing that prevention and early detection were the most heavily funded CCCP areas. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights a practical, rigorous approach for generating evidence required to monitor progress, enhance planning efforts, and recommend improvements to a CCCP.
CONTEXT: Rigorous outcome evaluation is essential to monitor progress toward achieving goals and objectives in comprehensive cancer control plans (CCCPs). OBJECTIVE: This report describes a systematic approach for an initial outcome evaluation of a CCCP. DESIGN: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluation framework, the evaluation focused on (1) organizing cancer plan objectives by anatomic site and risk factors, (2) rating each according to clarity and data availability, (3) the subsequent evaluation of clearly stated objectives with available outcome data, and (4) mapping allocation of implementation grants for local cancer control back to the CCCP objectives. SETTING: South Carolina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation outcomes included (1) a detailed account of CCCP objectives by topic area, (2) a systematic rating of level of clarity and availability of data to measure CCCP objectives, (3) a systematic assessment of attainment of measurable objectives, and (4) a summary of how cancer control grant funds were allocated and mapped to CCCP objectives. RESULTS: A system was developed to evaluate the extent to which cancer plan objectives were measurable as written with data available for monitoring. Twenty-one of 64 objectives (33%) in the South Carolina's CCCP were measurable as written with data available. Of the 21 clear and measurable objectives, 38% were not met, 38% were partially met, and 24% were met. Grant allocations were summarized across CCCP chapters, revealing that prevention and early detection were the most heavily funded CCCP areas. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights a practical, rigorous approach for generating evidence required to monitor progress, enhance planning efforts, and recommend improvements to a CCCP.
Authors: Armin D Weinberg; Pamela M Jackson; Christine A DeCourtney; Kym Cravatt; Joanne Ogo; Marta M Sanchez; Guillermo Tortolero-Luna; Rochelle L Rollins Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Leslie S Given; Karin Hohman; Madeline La Porta; Lori Belle-Isle; Phyllis Rochester Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Wendy K D Selig; K Larry Jenkins; Steven L Reynolds; Dave Benson; Morgan Daven Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Lori A Pollack; Greta E Greer; Julia H Rowland; Andy Miller; Donna Doneski; Steven S Coughlin; Ellen Stovall; Doug Ulman Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Leslie S Given; Karin Hohman; Lorrie Graaf; Phyllis Rochester; Lori Belle-Isle Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: C Brooke Steele; John M Rose; Julie S Townsend; Jamila Fonseka; Lisa C Richardson; Gary Chovnick Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Mila Nu Nu Htay; Michael Donnelly; Desiree Schliemann; Siew Yim Loh; Maznah Dahlui; Saunthari Somasundaram; Nor Saleha Binti Ibrahim Tamin; Tin Tin Su Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2021-06-01