Evidence-Based Cancer Survivorship Activities for Comprehensive Cancer Control

216 Background: People of color die from cancer in disproportionately higher rates than Caucasians. As an NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) network member, we utilized American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding to develop a unique partnership. Hartford Hospital’s Helen and Harry Gray Cancer Center (GCC) has worked closely with our statewide comprehensive cancer control coalition, the Connecticut Cancer Partnership (CCP), to address racial and ethnic health disparities across the state of Connecticut. Methods: We provided a Disparities Project Coordinator (DPC) to work for the CCP as a loaned executive. In this role, the DPC leveraged GCC resources, shared best practices, convened and coordinated statewide activities, and provided oversight for statewide implementation of evidence-based disparities- related cancer projects. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal Funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. Results: The DPC worked within the CCP structure to inform decision-making, initiate educational activities, and spearhead innovative projects such as a disparities internship with local universities and the evidence-based Body and Soul program in churches. Beyond CCP integration, the DPC represents CCP and the GCC on key statewide bodies to influence and inform policy affecting racial and ethnic minorities. Conclusions: This unique partnership is an example of a successful private-public partnership that has resulted in increased minority involvement in the state coalition and creation of multiple key partnerships with private, non-profit and state agencies. The accomplishments of the DPC have resulted in sustainability for this position and the establishment of an effective partnership model to address cancer disparities in the state.

Download Full-text

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

Preventing Chronic Disease ◽

10.5888/pcd12.150095 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

C. Brooke Steele ◽

John M. Rose ◽

Julie S. Townsend ◽

Jamila Fonseka ◽

Lisa C. Richardson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Control ◽

Comprehensive Cancer Control ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Evidence Based Practices

Download Full-text

Use of Evidence-Based Practices and Resources Among Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice ◽

10.1097/phh.0000000000000053 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 441-448 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

C. Brooke Steele ◽

John M. Rose ◽

Gary Chovnick ◽

Julie S. Townsend ◽

Chrisandra K. Stockmyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Control ◽

Comprehensive Cancer Control ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Evidence Based Practices ◽

Control Programs

Download Full-text

International Cancer Control Leadership Forum Program

Journal of Global Oncology ◽

10.1200/jgo.2016.004853 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 28s-28s

Author(s):

Tulika Singh ◽

Brenda Kostelecky ◽

Lisa Stevens

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Action Plan ◽

Cancer Control ◽

Local Context ◽

Comprehensive Cancer Control ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Control Plan ◽

Cancer Burden ◽

Phone Calls ◽

National Cancer Control Plan

Abstract 43 A National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) comprises an important part of a country's non-communicable disease (NCD) plan and can help countries meet NCD targets outlined in the WHO Global NCD Action Plan. A comprehensive cancer control plan is based on data such as a country's cancer burden and cancer risk factors, available resources, and local context of culture and health care. The plan provides a systematic framework for implementation of evidence-based and cost-effective strategies for cancer prevention and control. The International Cancer Control Leadership Forum is a 2-3 day regional workshop with thematic seminar modules on cancer control planning and implementation, as well as interactive action planning sessions. The goal is to increase the capacity of participating countries to initiate or enhance cancer control planning and implementation through a multisectoral approach. The country teams are composed of high-level leaders who represent government agencies, civil society, oncology professionals, and academia. The program approach engages country teams over a year and a half. Approximately 3-6 months prior to the forum, teams conduct a situational analysis of the cancer burden and cancer control planning efforts in their country. During the Forum, teams are introduced to evidence-based approaches and exchange best-practices with colleagues to develop a 12-month action plan to move their cancer control planning and implementation efforts forward. In the year after the Forum, country teams and Forum faculty meet for 3-4 follow-up phone calls to address technical assistance needs as countries begin to implement their action plan. Thus far, Forums have been held in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean, Middle East-North Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia regions. The country teams report that the Forum provides an important opportunity to plan with diverse stakeholders. Participants also report increased awareness and knowledge on developing and implementing a national cancer control plan, and learn best-practices from their colleagues in neighboring countries. In some Forums, countries have shown interest to work collaboratively towards regional initiatives. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No COIs from the authors.

Download Full-text

Advancing engagement and capacity for rural cancer control: a mixed-methods case study of a Community-Academic Advisory Board in the Appalachia region of Southwest Virginia

Research Involvement and Engagement ◽

10.1186/s40900-021-00285-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jamie M. Zoellner ◽

Kathleen J. Porter ◽

Donna-Jean P. Brock ◽

Emma Mc Kim Mitchell ◽

Howard Chapman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mixed Methods ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Cancer Control ◽

Value Added ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Comprehensive Cancer Control ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination ◽

Time Points

Abstract Background The objectives are to: 1) describe engagement processes used to prioritize and address regional comprehensive cancer control needs among a Community-Academic Advisory Board (CAB) in the medically-underserved, rural Appalachian region, and 2) detail longitudinal CAB evaluation findings. Methods This three-year case study (2017–2020) used a convergent parallel, mixed-methods design. The approach was guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, the Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation process, and Nine Habits of Successful Comprehensive Cancer Control Coalitions. Meeting artifacts were tracked and evaluated. CAB members completed quantitative surveys at three time points and semi-structured interviews at two time points. Quantitative data were analyzed using analysis of variance tests. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via an inductive-deductive process. Results Through 13 meetings, Prevention and Early Detection Action Teams created causal models and prioritized four cancer control needs: human papillomavirus vaccination, tobacco control, colorectal cancer screening, and lung cancer screening. These sub-groups also began advancing into planning and intervention proposal development phases. As rated by 49 involved CAB members, all habits significantly improved from Time 1 to Time 2 (i.e., communication, priority work plans, roles/accountability, shared decision making, value-added collaboration, empowered leadership, diversified funding, trust, satisfaction; all p < .05), and most remained significantly higher at Time 3. CAB members also identified specific challenges (e.g., fully utilizing member expertise), strengths (e.g., diverse membership), and recommendations across habits. Conclusion This project’s equity-based CBPR approach used a CPPE process in conjunction with internal evaluation of cancer coalition best practices to advance CAB efforts to address cancer disparities in rural Appalachia. This approach encouraged CAB buy-in and identified key strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that will lay the foundation for continued involvement in cancer control projects. These engagement processes may serve as a template for similar coalitions in rural, underserved areas.

Download Full-text