Julie S Townsend1, Angela R Moore, Tiffani N Mulder, Mary Boyd. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia (Ms Townsend, Moore, Mulder, and Boyd). Ms Mulder is now with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
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 the 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's NCCCP. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine 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 5-year funding cycle and declined in subsequent project years. By year 3, more than 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 1 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.
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 the 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's NCCCP. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine 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 5-year funding cycle and declined in subsequent project years. By year 3, more than 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 1 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.
Authors: C Brooke Steele; John M Rose; Gary Chovnick; Julie S Townsend; Chrisandra K Stockmyer; Jamila Fonseka; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2015 Sep-Oct
Authors: Anthony J Alberg; Kathleen B Cartmell; Katherine R Sterba; Susan Bolick; Virginie G Daguise; James R Hébert Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2013 Jul-Aug
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Laura P Forsythe; Bryce B Reeve; Catherine M Alfano; Juan L Rodriguez; Susan A Sabatino; Nikki A Hawkins; Julia H Rowland Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 4.254
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