Communication and comprehensive cancer control coalitions: lessons from two decades of campaigns, outreach, and training

Where Are the Children? A Thematic Analysis of State, Territory, and Tribal Organization Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans

BACKGROUND

The Center for Disease Control's Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (CCCP) funds initiatives in fifty states, the District of Columbia, seven U.S. territories, and seven tribal organizations to prevent and control cancer. These initiatives influence policy, care, research, and advocacy for cancer treatment. We performed an analysis of CCCP plans for states, U.S. territories, and tribal organizations to understand the extent of inclusion of pediatric cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a thematic and quantitative analysis of CCCP plans for states, U.S. territories, and tribal organizations. Plans were assessed by two reviewers and scored for discussion of cancer prevention, risk factors, early detection and screening, treatment and innovation, access, barriers to care, and survivorship in childhood cancer.

RESULTS

Plans from fifty states, the District of Columbia, seven territories, seven tribal organizations, and one Pacific Regional (USAPI) plan were reviewed, for a total of sixty-six plans. Up-to-date CCCP plans were available through the CDC or state websites for 74% of states, 57% of territories, and 71% of tribal organizations; older plans were available for all groups without up-to-date CCCP plans. While all plans referenced children, most did so in the context of childhood exposures influencing adult cancer risks (e.g., sun, tobacco, HPV). Few plans contained a section dedicated to childhood cancer (30% states, 14.3% territories, 14.3% tribes). A minority of plans specifically discussed early detection and screening (14% states, 0% territories, 14.3% tribes), treatment and innovation (32% states, 0% territories, 28.6% tribes), access to cancer care (38% states, 28.6% territories, 28.6% tribes), reducing barriers to cancer care (28% states, 42.9% territories, 28.6% tribes), and pediatric cancer survivorship (42% states, 0% territories, 28.6% tribes).

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting inclusion of pediatric cancer in CCPs will help to standardize pediatric cancer care, eliminate treatment disparities across state lines, and allow for comprehensive understanding of pediatric oncology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Creating and Implementing a Community Engagement Strategy for the 2022-2027 Illinois Comprehensive Cancer Control Plan Through an Academic-State Public Health Department Partnership

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans are state-level blueprints that identify regional cancer priorities and health equity strategies. Coalitions are encouraged to engage with community members, advocacy groups, people representing multiple sectors, and working partners throughout the development process. We describe the community and legislative engagement strategy developed and implemented during 2020-2022 for the 2022-2027 Illinois CCC plan.

METHODS

The engagement strategies were grounded in theory and evidence-based tools and resources. It was developed and implemented by coalition members representing the state health department and an academic partner, with feedback from the larger coalition. The strategy included a statewide town hall, 8 focus groups, and raising awareness of the plan among state policy makers.

RESULTS

A total of 112 people participated in the town hall and focus groups, including 40 (36%) cancer survivors, 31 (28%) cancer caregivers, and 18 (16%) Latino and 26 (23%) African American residents. Fourteen of 53 (26%) focus group participants identified as rural. Participants identified drivers of cancer disparities (eg, lack of a comprehensive health insurance system, discrimination, transportation access) and funding and policy priorities. Illinois House Resolution 0675, the Illinois Cancer Control Plan, was passed in March 2022.

CONCLUSION

The expertise and voices of community members affected by cancer can be documented and reflected in CCC plans. CCC plans can be brought to the attention of policy makers. Other coalitions working on state plans may consider replicating our strategy. Ultimately, CCC plans should reflect health equity principles and prioritize eliminating cancer disparities.

Technical Assistance and Training Needs of Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs: a Qualitative Analysis

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) was established in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to advance national cancer control implementation across US states and affiliated tribes and territories. To build capacity of NCCCP recipients, technical assistance and training (TAT) is offered in the form of online trainings, webinars, toolkits, workshops, tip sheets, and other products. To determine TAT needs of NCCCP recipients, the George Washington University (GW) Cancer Center conducted a qualitative evaluation to inform TAT planning and implementation. Data on the utilization, applicability, impact, and dissemination of TAT received were collected from comprehensive cancer control practitioners through semi-structured interviews. Detailed memos of interviewee responses were documented and deductively coded based on three themes: promotion of TAT, use of existing TAT, and recommendations for future TAT. Interviewees reported a need for diverse topics, modalities, and TAT reminders. The most widely used TAT resources were social media toolkits, webinars, newsletters, patient navigation resources, and online trainings. Recommendations for future TAT included a focus on coalition support, adaptation and evaluation of evidence-based cancer control strategies, and health equity. Offering a blend of TAT, including educational webinars and trainings, was preferred by CCC professionals and could increase use. Future TAT will provide new opportunities for coalition capacity building, adaptation of evidence-based strategies for cancer control, and center health equity.

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

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.

Implementation of Cancer Plans in the United States: A Review

State cancer plans facilitate prioritization and stakeholder engagement in preventing and controlling cancer. Implementation plans further help stakeholders prioritize efforts, reduce redundancy, and find opportunities for work synergies. A review of cancer plan implementations plans was performed in the development of an implementation plan for the Florida Cancer Plan. This review sought to identify, characterize, and summarize the use of implementation plans that support comprehensive cancer control activities. Although 100% of states and territories published a cancer plan and 78% of states provided funding for implementing their state cancer plans, only 32% published an implementation plan. Commonalities and unique features of state cancer plan implementations are presented and discussed. An example implementation plan is provided for states without a plan to model.

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.