National cancer control plans: a global analysis.

There is increasing global recognition that national cancer plans are crucial to effectively address the cancer burden and to prioritise and coordinate programmes. We did a global analysis of available national cancer-related health plans using a standardised assessment questionnaire to assess their inclusion of elements that characterise an effective cancer plan and, thereby, improve understanding of the strengths and limitations of existing plans. The results show progress in the development of cancer plans, as well as in the inclusion of stakeholders in plan development, but little evidence of their implementation. Areas of continued unmet need include setting of realistic priorities, specification of programmes for cancer management, allocation of appropriate budgets, monitoring and evaluation of plan implementation, promotion of research, and strengthening of information systems. We found that countries with a non-communicable disease (NCD) plan but no national cancer control plan (NCCP) were less likely than countries with an NCCP and NCP plan or an NCCP only to have comprehensive, coherent, or consistent plans. As countries move towards universal health coverage, greater emphasis is needed on developing NCCPs that are evidence based, financed, and implemented to ensure translation into action.

Ten Years of the International Cancer Control Partnership: Promoting National Cancer Control Plans to Shape the Health System Response for Cancer Control.

Growing premature mortality because of cancer is an increasing public health concern in all countries. This article reviews 10 years of the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) considering the themes of National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) support, technical assistance, governance, and the renewed momentum of global calls to action. ICCP has provided key resources for the cancer community by hosting a portal with national cancer control and noncommunicable disease (NCD) plans, strategies, guidelines, and key implementation guides for a growing community of best practices. ICCP partners have responded to the changing needs of country planners, adjusting technical guidance as needs evolve from planning to implementation at the national level with an associated shift to peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange. The ICCP offer to assist countries in cancer planning continues to be relevant as countries focus on implementation of global initiatives for breast, cervical, and childhood cancers. These initiatives are important to drive priority actions and a systems approach in the emerging road map on NCDs-a message that will be supported by a second global review of NCCPs in 2023. This is critical for driving national action in all countries on cancer and other NCDs in line with global health commitments made for 2030 and adopted by the United Nations General Assemblies. ICCP sees robust systems and financial planning for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of NCCPs and protection from cancer-related catastrophic expenditure, as critical to longer-term sustainability and success. ICCP calls for national policymakers to prioritize integration of cancer prevention and control into emerging universal health care approaches, including pandemic preparedness/health system resilience and calls for an equity focus in new NCCPs.

An analysis of survivorship care strategies in national cancer control plans in Africa.

PURPOSE: In 2017, the World Health Organization urged member states to develop and implement national cancer control plans (NCCPs) and to anticipate and promote cancer survivor follow-up care, which is a critical yet often overlooked component of NCCPs. This study aims to examine the inclusion of cancer survivorship-related strategies and objectives in NCCPs of African countries. METHODS: Independent reviewers extracted strategies, objectives, and associated indicators related to survivorship care from 21 current or recently expired NCCPs in African countries. Building on a similar analysis of the US state cancer control plans, reviewers categorized these strategies according to an adapted version of the ten recommendations for comprehensive survivorship care detailed in the 2006 National Academy of Medicine report. RESULTS: A total of 202 survivorship-related strategies were identified, with all NCCPs including between 1 and 23 references to survivorship. Eighty-three (41%) strategies were linked to measurable indicators, and 128 (63%) of the survivorship-related strategies were explicitly focused on palliative care. The most frequent domains referenced were models of coordinated care (65 strategies), healthcare professional capacity (45), and developing and utilizing evidence-based guidelines (23). The least-referenced domains were survivorship care plans (4) and adequate and affordable health insurance (0). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that survivorship objectives and strategies should extend beyond palliative care to encompass all aspects of survivorship and should include indicators to measure progress. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Stakeholders can use this baseline analysis to identify and address gaps in survivorship care at the national policy level.

Examining the Landscape of Prognostic Factors and Clinical Outcomes for Cancer Control.

Prognostic factors have important utility in various aspects of cancer surveillance, including research, patient care, and cancer control programmes. Nevertheless, there is heterogeneity in the collection of prognostic factors and outcomes data globally. This study aimed to investigate perspectives on the utility and application of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in cancer control programmes. A qualitative phenomenology approach using expert interviews was taken to derive a rich description of the current state and future outlook of cancer prognostic factors and clinical outcomes. Individuals with expertise in this work and from various regions and institutions were invited to take part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Four areas related to infrastructure and funding challenges were identified by participants, including (1) data collection and access; (2) variability in data reporting, coding, and definitions; (3) limited coordination among databases; and (4) conceptualization and prioritization of meaningful prognostic factors and outcomes. Two areas were identified regarding important future priorities for cancer control: (1) global investment and intention in cancer surveillance and (2) data governance and exchange globally. Participants emphasized the need for better global collection of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes data and support for standardized data collection and data exchange practices by cancer registries.