The strategic case for establishing public-private partnerships in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) as a public-private partnership with community hospitals with a goal of advancing cancer care and research. In order to leverage federal dollars in a time of limited resources, matching funds from each participating hospital were required. The purpose of this paper is to examine hospitals' level of and rationale for co-investment in this partnership, and whether there is an association between hospitals' co-investment and achievement of strategic goals. METHODS: Analysis using a comparative case study and micro-cost data was conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the NCCCP pilot to determine the level of co-investment made in support of NCI's goals. In-person or telephone interviews with key informants were conducted at 10 participating hospital and system sites during the first and final years of implementation. Micro-cost data were collected annually from each site from 2007 to 2010. Self-reported data from each awardee are presented on patient volume and physician counts, while secondary data are used to examine the local Medicare market share. RESULTS: The rationale expressed by interviewees for participation in a public-private partnership with NCI included expectations of increased market share, higher patient volumes, and enhanced opportunities for cancer physician recruitment as a result of affiliation with the NCI. On average, hospitals invested resources into the NCCCP at a level exceeding $3 for every $1 of federal funds. Six sites experienced a statistically significant change in their Medicare market share. Cancer patient volume increased by as much as one-third from Year 1 to Year 3 for eight of the sites. Nine sites reported an increase in key cancer physician recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrated investments in cancer care and research were associated with increases in cancer patient volume and perhaps in recruitment of key cancer physicians, but not in increased Medicare market share. Although the results reflect a small sample of hospitals, findings suggest that hospital executives believe there to be a strategic case for a public-private partnership as demonstrated through the NCCCP, which leveraged federal funds to support mutual goals for advancing cancer care and research.

Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: National guideline groups recommend screening and discussion of screening options for persons at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, emerging evidence suggests that CRC screening is simultaneously underused, overused, and misused and that adequate patient-provider discussions about screening are infrequent. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on factors that influence CRC screening and strategies that increase the appropriate use and quality of CRC screening and CRC screening discussions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for English-language publications describing studies conducted in the United States from January 1998 through September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies that addressed the study questions and met eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, setting, intervention, outcomes, and quality were extracted by one reviewer and double-checked by another. Reviewers assigned a strength-of-evidence grade for intervention categories by using criteria plus a consensus process. DATA SYNTHESIS: Reviewers found evidence of simultaneous underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening as well as inadequate clinical discussions about CRC screening. Several patient-level factors were independently associated with lower screening rates, including having low income or less education, being uninsured, being Hispanic or Asian, being less acculturated into the United States, or having limited access to care. Evidence that interventions that included patient reminders or one-on-one interactions (that is, between patients and nonphysician clinic staff), eliminated structural barriers (for example, simplifying access to fecal occult blood test cards), or made system-level changes (for example, using systematic screening as opposed to opportunistic screening) were effective in enhancing use of CRC screening was strong. Evidence on how best to enhance discussions about CRC screening options is limited. No studies focused on reducing overuse, and very few focused on misuse. LIMITATIONS: Reporting and publication bias may have affected our findings. The independent effect of individual elements of multicomponent interventions was often uncertain. CONCLUSION: Although CRC screening is underused overall, important problems of overuse and misuse also exist. System- and policy-level interventions that target vulnerable populations are needed to reduce underuse. Interventions aimed at reducing barriers by making the screening process easier are likely to be effective. Studies aimed at reducing overuse and misuse and at enhancing the quality and frequency of discussions about CRC screening options are needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Modeling psychological empowerment among youth involved in local tobacco control efforts.

The American Legacy Foundation funded 13 state health departments for their Statewide Youth Movement Against Tobacco Use in September 2000. Its goal was to create statewide tobacco control initiatives implemented with youth leadership. The underlying theory behind these initiatives was that tobacco control efforts can best be accomplished by empowering youth. To evaluate these initiatives, the authors developed a conceptual framework for youth empowerment that was used as a guide in developing standardized cross-site measures. This article describes the domains and attributes used to operationalize psychological empowerment as an outcome of youth involvement in these initiatives and presents results of our two-stage structural equation modeling. We conclude with a summary of lessons learned to date and recommendations for applying these findings to work in the field.

Conceptualizing youth empowerment within tobacco control.

This article presents a conceptual framework that was developed to guide a national evaluation of the American Legacy Foundation's (Legacy) Statewide Youth Movement Against Tobacco Use (SYMATU) program. This program was designed to develop youth-led, youth-directed initiatives within local communities. Two evaluation studies were designed and implemented from 2000 through 2003: a cross-site study that collected standard data elements across all 17 programs and a case study of five programs that collected formative data on variables thought to affect program implementation. In developing the youth empowerment (YE) conceptual framework, the authors started by reviewing literature to identify the concepts necessary for these types of initiatives and present a summary of their findings here. This article focuses on the development of the authors'overarching conceptual framework used to guide their evaluation studies. Other articles contained within this special issue present results from each of the SYMATU evaluation studies.

Quantifying the impact of participation in local tobacco control groups on the psychological empowerment of involved youth.

A core component of Legacy's Statewide Youth Movement Against Tobacco Use is the ability of state and local initiatives to empower youth to effect change in their communities. The authors' conceptual framework proposes that youth empowerment is an outcome of the process by which youths become active participants in local efforts. Youths are proposed to attain specific skills (e.g., assertiveness, advocacy), attitudes (e.g., domain-specific self-efficacy, perceived sociopolitical control, participatory competence), and knowledge of relevant resources. All are proposed outcomes of their individual participation in these local efforts. Data collected in fall 2002 through a tested survey instrument designed to obtain data on key components of empowerment are presented. Regression modeling was used to examine the extent to which characteristics of empowerment are an outcome of individual participation in these groups. A summary of lessons learned pertaining to effectively measuring empowerment and enhancing the empowerment process through local initiatives is provided.

Improving quality of cancer care at community hospitals: impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program pilot.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer treated at community hospitals may experience decreased quality of care compared with patients treated at higher-volume cancer hospitals. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot is designed to enhance research and improve cancer care at community hospitals. We assessed changes in quality of care among the 16 initial NCCCP sites versus 25 similar hospitals that did not participate in the NCCCP. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with five National Quality Forum-approved quality of care measures (three for breast cancer, two for colon cancer) for patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2007 (pre-NCCCP initiation) versus 2008 to 2010 (post-NCCCP initiation) at NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Data were collected using the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Analyses were performed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 18,608 patients with breast cancer and 7,031 patients with colon cancer. After NCCCP initiation, patient-level concordance rates for all five quality-of-care measures increased significantly among NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Increased quality of care among NCCCP sites was significantly greater than that among comparison-group hospitals for radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery and hormonal therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In multivariate regressions, increases in hormonal therapy among NCCCP-site patients were significantly greater than those among comparison-group hospitals. CONCLUSION: Both NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals showed improved quality of care; however, NCCCP sites had significantly greater improvements for a subset of measures. This greater increase may reflect the multidisciplinary focus of the NCCCP. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority.

Improving integration and coordination of funding, technical assistance, and reporting/data collection: recommendations from CDC and USAPI stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Current US Federal funding mechanisms may foster program silos that disable sharing of resources and information across programs within a larger system of public health services. Such silos present challenges to USAPI communities where human resources, health infrastructure, and health financing are limited. Integrative and coordinated approaches have been recommended. The CDC Pacific Islands Integration and Coordination project was initiated by the CDC Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC). The project aim was to identify ways for the CDC to collaborate with the USAPI in improving CDC activities and processes related to chronic disease. This article focuses on recommendations for improving coordination and integration in three core areas of health services programming: funding, program reporting/data collection and analysis, and technical assistance. METHOD: Preliminary information on challenges and issues relevant to the core areas was gathered through site visits, focus groups, key informant interviews, and other sources. This information was used by stakeholder groups from the CDC and the USAPI to develop recommendations in the core programming areas. Recommendations generated at the CDC and USAPI stakeholder meetings were prepared into a single set of recommendations and stakeholders reviewed the document for accuracy prior to its dissemination to CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion programs management and staff. RESULTS: Key recommendations, include: (1) consideration of resources and other challenges unique to the USAPI when reviewing funding applications, (2) consideration of ways to increase flexibility in USAPI use of program funds, (3) dedication of funding and human resources for technical assistance, (4) provision of opportunities for capacity-building across programs and jurisdictions, (5) consideration of ways to more directly link program reporting with technical assistance. CONCLUSIONS: This project provided a unique opportunity for CDC and USAPI stakeholders to share diverse perspectives on challenges to public health programs in the USAPI. Despite diverse experiences, the final set of recommendations reflected a high level of concordance between USAPI and CDC stakeholders. Recommendations have informed or reinforced actions initiated by the DCPC, including the dedication of funds for leadership institutes aimed at enhancing USAPI capacity for sustainable, integrated regional and jurisdictional cancer control infrastructure. Such efforts are an important beginning, but more remains to be done. Indicated is the need for continuous dialogue and collaboration. While this project focused on the USAPI, our results may be relevant to those interested in inter-organizational collaborations, medically underserved areas, public health services programs, and community-based participatory approaches.

The public's response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 recommendations on mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: On November 16, 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released new breast cancer screening recommendations, resulting in considerable controversy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the volume and framing of the public discourse around the mammography recommendations and determine if women were knowledgeable about the new recommendations. METHODS: Two different types of data collection methods were used for this study: (1) a content analysis of news stories and social media posts around the time of the USPSTF announcement and (2) a web-based survey of women aged 40-74 years conducted through Knowledge Networks from December 17, 2009, to January 6, 2010. Data were analyzed in 2010. RESULTS: The survey sample included 1221 women aged 40-74 years who had never had breast cancer. The majority of the articles and posts (51.9%) did not support the screening recommendations, and 17.6% were supportive. Less than one quarter of the sample could identify the new recommendations for women aged 40-49 years and 50-74 years. Results from logistic regression analyses identified characteristics associated with correct knowledge of the recommendations for each age group. Level of attention paid to the recommendations was significantly associated with accurate knowledge of the recommendations for each age group. Having a mammogram within the past 2 years, "other" race (i.e., not black or white), and having higher levels of education, confidence that recommendations were based on the latest research, and attention paid to the new guidelines were all significantly and positively associated with correct knowledge of the new recommendation for women aged 40-49 years. CONCLUSIONS: The new recommendations confused women (30.0%) more than they helped them understand when to get a mammogram (6.2%). Confusion was greatest among women aged 40-49 years and women who had never had a mammogram or who had one more than 2 years ago. Communication about future recommendations should be pretested to identify strategies and language that may reduce confusion among providers, consumers, and advocacy groups.

Cancer disparities in the Federated States of Micronesia: funding challenges of a developing nation in epidemiological transition.

This article describes funding and other challenges to cancer control in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and examines funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) as a critical facet in implementation of the U.S. Compact of Free Association (COFA). As a health-relevant policy, COFA commits the United States to improve the health of FSM citizens and, specifically, allows the FSM to apply for U.S. federal health FOAs. Emerging research suggests discrepancies in the intent and implementation of COFA and indicates that the capacity of the FSM to secure U.S. health funding may be at least partially hindered by the ways in which FOAs are structured. Current cancer-related FOAs were identified to evaluate their relevance to the FSM. Eligibility requirements of all FOAs were systematically reviewed and compared with FSM infrastructural and human resources. Findings indicate that most FOAs have requirements more likely to be met in fully developed health service entities. Such requirements disadvantage the FSM when competed with the relatively more resource-rich U.S. states and health services systems. This situation predisposes the FSM to increased risk of disparate cancer outcomes. Highlighted is the need for distributive justice and specific efforts that enhance the health services infrastructure in the FSM and increase opportunities for resource-appropriate interventions. Findings provide considerations for those in international social welfare, public health, and other disciplines interested in the advancement of global health partnerships to eliminate cancer disparities in underresourced nations.

Health services research and data linkages: issues, methods, and directions for the future.

BACKGROUND: Research on pressing health services and policy issues requires access to complete, accurate, and timely patient and organizational data. AIM: This paper describes how administrative and health records (including electronic medical records) can be linked for comparative effectiveness and health services research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We categorize the major agents (i.e., who owns and controls data and who carries out the data linkage) into three areas: (1) individual investigators; (2) government sponsored linked data bases; and (3) public-private partnerships that facilitate linkage of data owned by private organizations. We describe challenges that may be encountered in the linkage process, and the benefits of combining secondary databases with primary qualitative and quantitative sources. We use cancer care research to illustrate our points. RESULTS: To fill the gaps in the existing data infrastructure, additional steps are required to foster collaboration among institutions, researchers, and public and private components of the health care sector. Without such effort, independent researchers, governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations are likely to continue building upon a fragmented and costly system with limited access. Discussion. Without the development and support for emerging information technologies across multiple health care settings, the potential for data collected for clinical and transactional purposes to benefit the research community and, ultimately, the patient population may go unrealized. CONCLUSION: The current environment is characterized by budget and technical challenges, but investments in data infrastructure are arguably cost-effective given the need to reform our health care system and to monitor the impact of health reform initiatives.

Improving integration and coordination of funding, technical assistance, and reporting/data collection: recommendations from CDC and USAPI stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Current US Federal funding mechanisms may foster program silos that disable sharing of resources and information across programs within a larger system of public health services. Such silos present challenges to USAPI communities where human resources, health infrastructure, and health financing are limited. Integrative and coordinated approaches have been recommended. The CDC Pacific Islands Integration and Coordination project was initiated by the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC). Its project aim was to identify ways for the CDC to collaborate with the USAPI in improving CDC activities and processes related to chronic disease. This article focuses on recommendations for improving coordination and integration in three core areas of health services programming: funding, program reporting/data collection and analysis, and technical assistance. METHOD: Preliminary information on challenges and issues relevant to the core areas was gathered through site visits, focus groups, key informant interviews, and other sources. This information was used by stakeholder groups from the CDC and the USAPI to develop recommendations in the core programming areas. Recommendations generated at the CDC and USAPI stakeholder meetings were prepared into a single set of recommendations and stakeholders reviewed the document for accuracy prior to its dissemination to CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion programs management and staff. RESULTS: Key recommendations, include: (1) consideration of resource s and other challenges unique to the USAPI when reviewing funding applications, (2) consideration of ways to increase flexibility in USAPI use of program funds, (3) dedicate funding and human resources for technical assistance, (4) provide opportunities for capacity-building across programs and jurisdictions, (5) consider ways to more directly link program reporting with technical assistance. CONCLUSIONS: This project provided a unique opportunity for CDC and USAPI stakeholders to share diverse perspectives on challenges to public health programs in the USAPI. Despite diverse experiences, the final set of recommendations reflected a high level of concordance between USAPI and CDC stakeholders on ways to improve coordination and integration of CDC processes and activities in the three core areas. Recommendations have informed some actions already initiated by the DCPC, including the dedication of funds for leadership institutes aimed at enhancing USAPI capacity for sustainable, integrated regional and jurisdictional cancer control infrastructure. Such efforts are an important beginning, but more remains to be done. Indicated is the need for continuous dialogue and collaboration. While this project focused on the USAPI, our results may be relevant to those interested in inter-organizational collaborations, medically underserved areas, public health services programs, and community-based participatory approaches.

Enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the use and quality (including underuse, overuse, and misuse) of appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including factors associated with screening, effective interventions to improve screening rates, current capacity, and monitoring and tracking the use and quality. Trends in the use and quality of CRC screening tests is also presented. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Trials Registry, supplemented by handsearches, for studies published in English from January 1998 through September 2009. REVIEW METHODS: We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full text articles, abstractions, quality rating, and quality grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: We found multiple problems of underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening. We identified a total of 116 articles for inclusion into the systematic review, including a total of 72 studies qualified for inclusion for key question (KQ) 2, 21 for KQ 3, 12 for KQ 4, and 8 for KQ 5. A number of patient-level factors are associated with lower screening rates, including having low income or less education, being uninsured or of Hispanic or Asian descent, not being acculturated into the United States, and having less or reduced access to care. Being insured, of higher income or education, and non-Hispanic white, participating in other cancer screenings, having a family history of CRC or personal history of another cancer, as well as receiving a physician recommendation to be screened, are associated with higher screening rates. Interventions that effectively increased CRC screening with high strength of evidence include patient reminders, one-on-one interactions, eliminating structural barriers, and system-level changes. The largest magnitude of improvement came from one-on-one interactions and eliminating barriers. Purely educational small-media interventions do not improve screening rates. Evidence is mixed for decision aids, although certain designs may be effective. No studies tested interventions to reduce overuse or misuse of CRC screening. We found no studies that assessed monitoring systems for underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening. Modeling studies, using various assumptions, show that if the United States were to adopt a colonoscopy-only approach to CRC screening and everyone were to agree to be screened in this way, it is likely that colonoscopy capacity would need to be substantially increased. CONCLUSIONS: Both CRC screening and patient-physician discussions of CRC screening are underused, and important problems of overuse and misuse also exist. Some interventions hold promise for improvement. The research priority is to design and test interventions to increase screening and CRC screening discussions, building on the effective approaches identified in this review, and tailored to specific population needs. In addition, new interventions to reduce overuse and misuse should be designed and tested, along with studies of ongoing monitoring systems that are linked to feedback and continued improvement efforts.