Cancer control planning: self-assessment for pre-planning, development, implementation and evaluation of national cancer control plans.

The development of cancer control plans as a clearly defined concept began in the U.S. in the early 1990s. On an international level, the same concept has been described as "national cancer control planning" or national cancer control plan (NCCP) development and implementation. Recent efforts by the National Cancer Institute's Center for Global Health and its partners have increased international and country-level interest in NCCPs. Central to the development of these plans has been a need for countries to understand the crucial factors and foundational elements necessary to develop and successfully implement a national cancer plan. This article describes the process by which a tool developed by the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) helps countries and international partners assess their efforts to develop and implement a NCCP.

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control.

PURPOSE: In 2015-2016, the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership provided technical assistance workshops to support 22 cancer coalitions in increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in their local communities. As national efforts continue to invest in providing technical assistance, there is a current gap in understanding its use as a strategy to accelerate implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technical assistance on the participants' knowledge, attitudes, and skills for implementing EBIs in their local context and enhancing state team collaboration. METHODS: Data were collected August-November 2017 using web-based questionnaires from 44 HPV workshop participants and 66 CRC workshop participants. RESULTS: Both HPV vaccination and CRC screening workshop participants reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to implementing EBIs in their local state context. Several participants reported increased abilities in communicating and coordinating with partners in their states and utilizing additional implementation strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake and CRC screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that providing technical assistance to members of comprehensive cancer control coalitions is useful in promoting collaborations and building capacity for implementing EBIs for cancer prevention and control.

Collaborating to conquer cancer: the role of partnerships in comprehensive cancer control.

Comprehensive cancer control celebrated its twentieth anniversary in 2018. A dedicated group of national partners formed the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership (CCCNP) at the same time that CDC's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program was formed. The CCCNP has supported the development and growth of comprehensive cancer control from its inception. The CCCNP mirrors how coalitions function at the state, tribe, territory, and Pacific Island Jurisdiction level. We provide a national example of how 19 leading cancer organizations work together with a unified vision to support cancer control efforts in the United States (U.S.). What follows is an overview of the CCCNP, its vision, mission, and structure and a description of how this partnership has evolved over the past 20 years. The importance of collaboration is highlighted. Two states, South Dakota and Kansas, provide examples of how working with partners through the cancer coalition has advanced their state's cancer control agenda. Closing thoughts on the future work of the CCCNP are provided, including a continued focus on supporting health equity; better engagement and support of CCC coalition leaders; and informing efforts to develop a national cancer control plan for the United States.

Comprehensive cancer control in the U.S.: summarizing twenty years of progress and looking ahead.

In order to celebrate the accomplishments of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP), the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partners (CCCNP) developed this Special Issue on Cancer Causes and Control. This, the third Special Issue on Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC), is a reflection of 20 years of building successful partnerships to prevent and control cancer; planning and implementing strategic cancer control; collaborating to address national cancer prevention and control priorities; evaluating efforts; sharing successes; and, in later years, serving as a model for global cancer control planning and implementation. The CDC currently supports cancer control planning and implementation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, eight tribes or tribal organizations, and seven Pacific Island Jurisdictions and U.S. territories through the NCCCP. CCC is an approach that brings together multi-sector partners to address the cancer burden in a community collectively by leveraging existing resources and identifying and addressing cancer related issues and needs. The Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership (CCCNP), a partnership of national organizations, has been committed to supporting comprehensive cancer control efforts since 1999. We summarize the efforts described in this Special Issue. We also describe opportunities and critical elements to continue the momentum for comprehensive cancer control well into the future.

Comprehensive cancer control: progress and accomplishments.

The potential for Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) across the nation has been realized in the last decade with 69 Coalitions developing and implementing CCC plans. Many partners at all levels--national, state, jurisdictional, tribal and communities--have contributed to this success. This article details the contribution of these partners across these various levels, with a selection of the many activities contributing to this success. Consequently the cancer burden, although still of major importance, continues to be addressed in significant ways. Although there are future challenges, CCC coalitions continue to play an important role in addressing the cancer burden.

Research and comprehensive cancer control coalitions.

The goal of cancer control research is "to generate basic knowledge about how to monitor and change individual and collective behavior and to ensure that knowledge is translated into practice and policy rapidly, effectively, and efficiently" (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences in Cancer control framework and synthese rationale, 2010). Research activities span the cancer control continuum from prevention to early detection and diagnosis through treatment and survivorship (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences in Cancer control framework and synthese rationale, 2010). While significant advancements have been made in understanding, preventing and treating cancer in the past few decades, these benefits have yielded disproportionate results in cancer morbidity and mortality across various socioeconomic and racial/ethnic subgroups (Ozols et al in J Clin Oncol, 25(1):146-1622, 2007). It has been a high priority since the beginning of the Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) movement to utilize research in the development and implementation of cancer plans in the states, tribes and tribal organizations, territories and US Pacific Island Jurisdictions. Nevertheless, dissemination and implementation of research in coalition activities has been challenging for many programs. Lessons learned from programs and coalitions in the implementation and evaluation of CCC activities, as well as resources provided by national partners, can assist coalitions with the translation of research into practice.

Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control.

A key question in moving comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans into action is, to what extent should the knowledge gained from investments in cancer prevention and control research influence the actions taken by states, tribes, and territories during implementation? Underlying this 'should' is the assumption that evidence-based approaches (i.e., a public health or clinical intervention or policy that has resulted in improved outcomes when scientifically tested), when implemented in a real-world setting, will increase the likelihood of improved outcomes. This article elucidates the barriers and opportunities for integrating science with practice across the cancer control continuum. However, given the scope of CCC and the substantial investment in generating new knowledge through science, it is difficult for any one agency, on its own, to make a sufficient investment to ensure new knowledge is translated and implemented at a national, state, or local level. Thus, if greater demand for evidence-based interventions and increased resources for adopting them are going to support the dissemination initiatives described herein, new interagency partnerships must be developed to ensure that sufficient means are dedicated to integrating science with service. Furthermore, for these collaborations to increase both in size and in frequency, agency leaders must clearly articulate their support for these collaborative initiatives and explicitly recognize those collaborative efforts that are successful. In this way, the whole (in this context, comprehensive cancer control) can become greater than the sum of its parts.