sábado, 8 de agosto de 2015

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

full-text ►

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

CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC 24/7: Saving Lives. Protecting People.





PCD logo



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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH — Volume 12 — July 16, 2015

C. Brooke Steele, DO; John M. Rose, PhD; Julie S. Townsend, MS; Jamila Fonseka, MPH; Lisa C. Richardson, MD, MPH; Gary Chovnick, DrPH, MPH

Suggested citation for this article: Steele CB, Rose JM, Townsend JS, Fonseka J, Richardson LC, Chovnick G. Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners’ Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:150095. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.150095.
PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Introduction
National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardees are encouraged to work with partners (eg, nonprofit organizations) to develop and implement plans to reduce the cancer burden in their jurisdictions using evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, the extent of EBP use among awardees and their partners is not well understood.
Methods
From March through July 2012, we conducted a web-based survey of program partners referred by NCCCP program directors who were involved in implementation of cancer control plans.
Results
Approximately 53% of referred partners (n = 83) completed surveys, 91.6% of whom represented organizations. Most partners reported involvement in helping to identify (80.5%), adapt (81.7%), implement (90.4%), and evaluate (81.9%) EBPs. The factors rated most frequently as very important when selecting EBPs were “consistent with our organization’s mission” (89.2%) and “cost-effective” (81.9%). Although most respondents said that their organizations understood the importance of using EBPs (84.3%) and had adequate access to cancer registry data (74.7%), few reported having sufficient financial resources to develop new EBPs (7.9%). The most frequently mentioned benefit of using EBPs was that they are proven to work. Resource limitations and difficulty adapting EBPs for specific populations and settings were challenges.
Conclusions
Our findings help indicate how NCCCP partners are involved in using EBPs and can guide ongoing efforts to encourage the use of EBPs for cancer control. The challenges of using EBPs that partners identified highlight the need to improve strategies to translate cancer prevention and control research into practice in real-world settings and for diverse populations.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by contract 200-2008-27956-0015 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
 Top

Author Information

Corresponding Author: C. Brooke Steele, DO, Medical Officer, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mail Stop F-76, Chamblee Building No. 107, 4th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: 770-488-4340. Email: BSteele1@cdc.gov.
Author Affiliations: John M. Rose, Gary Chovnick, Health and Analytics, Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington; Julie S. Townsend, Jamila Fonseka, Lisa C. Richardson, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
 Top

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program; 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/ncccp/. Accessed February 3, 2014.
  2. Major A, Stewart SL. Celebrating 10 years of the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, 1998 to 2008. Prev Chronic Dis 2009;6(4):A133. PubMed
  3. Behringer B, Lofton S, Knight ML. Models for local implementation of comprehensive cancer control: meeting local cancer control needs through community collaboration. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):1995–2004. CrossRef PubMed
  4. Abed J, Reilley B, Butler MO, Kean T, Wong F, Hohman K. Developing a framework for comprehensive cancer prevention and control in the United States: an initiative of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. J Public Health Manag Pract 2000;6(2):67–78. CrossRef PubMed
  5. Abed J, Reilley B, Butler MO, Kean T, Wong F, Hohman K. Comprehensive cancer control initiative of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: an example of participatory innovation diffusion. J Public Health Manag Pract 2000;6(2):79–92. CrossRef PubMed
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for comprehensive cancer control planning. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services; 2002.
  7. Kerner JF, Hall KL. Research dissemination and diffusion: translation within science and society. Res Soc Work Pract 2009;19(5):519–30. CrossRef
  8. Brownson RC, Gurney JG, Land GH. Evidence-based decision making in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract 1999;5(5):86–97. CrossRef PubMed
  9. Kohatsu ND, Robinson JG, Torner JC. Evidence-based public health: an evolving concept. Am J Prev Med 2004;27(5):417–21. PubMed
  10. Vinson C, La Porta M, Todd W, Palafox NA, Wilson KM, Fairley T. Research and comprehensive cancer control coalitions. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):2033–40. CrossRef PubMed
  11. Rochester PW, Townsend JS, Given L, Krebill H, Balderrama S, Vinson C. Comprehensive cancer control: progress and accomplishments. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):1967–77.CrossRef PubMed
  12. Seeff LC, Major A, Townsend JS, Provost E, Redwood D, Espey D, et al. Comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions: partnering to launch successful colorectal cancer screening initiatives. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):2023–31. CrossRef PubMed
  13. Hannon PA, Fernandez ME, Williams RS, Mullen PD, Escoffery C, Kreuter MW, et al. Cancer control planners’ perceptions and use of evidence-based programs. J Public Health Manag Pract 2010;16(3):E1–8. CrossRef PubMed
  14. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef PubMed
  15. Kerner JF, Guirguis-Blake J, Hennessy KD, Brounstein PJ, Vinson C, Schwartz RH, et al. Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2005;16(S1, Suppl 1):27–40. CrossRef PubMed
  16. Steele CB, Rose JM, Chovnick G, Townsend JS, Stockmyer CK, et al. Use of evidence-based practices and resources among comprehensive cancer control programs. J Public Health Manag Pract 2014 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print]. CrossRef PubMed
  17. Rabin BA, Glasgow RE, Kerner JF, Klump MP, Brownson RC. Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2010;38(4):443–56. PubMed
  18. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York (NY): Free Press; 2003.
  19. Guide to Commmunity Preventive Services. http//www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html. Accessed August 13, 2010.
  20. Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. http//cancercontrolplanet.cancer.gov/index/html. Accessed August 13, 2010.
  21. Research-Tested Intervention Programs (RTIPs). http://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips. Accessed August 3, 2010.
  22. Morgan DL. Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qual Health Res 1993;3(1):112–21. CrossRef PubMed
  23. Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd edition. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1990.
  24. Townsend JS, Moore AR, Mulder TN, Boyd M. What does a performance measurement system tell us about the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program? J Public Health Manag Pract 2014;00(00):1–8 [Published online 2014 Aug 18]. CrossRef PubMed
  25. Rochester P, Porterfield DS, Richardson LC, McAleer K, Adams E, Holden D. Piloting performance measurement for Comprehensive Cancer Control programs. J Public Health Manag Pract 2011;17(3):275–82. CrossRef PubMed
  26. Pollack LA, Hawkins NA, Peaker BL, Buchanan N, Risendal BC. Dissemination and translation: a frontier for cancer survivorship research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10):2093–8. CrossRef PubMed
  27. Hohman K, Rochester P, Kean T, Belle-Isle L. The CCC National Partnership: an example of organizations collaborating on comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):1979–85. CrossRef PubMed
  28. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012;43(1):97–118. CrossRef PubMed
  29. Weinberg AD, Jackson PM, DeCourtney CA, Cravatt K, Ogo J, Sanchez MM, et al. Progress in addressing disparities through comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(12):2015–21. CrossRef PubMed
  30. Alberg AJ, Cartmell KB, Sterba KR, Bolick S, Daguise VG, Hébert JR. Outcome evaluation of a state comprehensive cancer control plan: laying the foundation. J Public Health Manag Pract 2013;19(4):300–7. CrossRef PubMed
Publicado por en

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)