Evolution of Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans and Partnerships

Evolution of Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans and Partnerships: Historical Context

Author:

Karin Hohman (Presenter)
Strategic Health Concepts

Public Health Statement: Cancer plans provide an organizing framework for individual and organzational cancer stakeholders to address their state, tribe, territory or Pacific Island Jurisdiction’s cancer burden in a coordinated and collaborative way. There has been an evolution of CCC plans and partnerships and this evolution has impacted and improved the functioning and success of CCC partnerships and their efforts to address challenging cancer issues.

Purpose: To provide a brief overview of the evolution of cancer plan development and implementation in the nation over the past 20 years

Methods/Approach: A review of cancer plans and partnership structures over the past 20 years will yield examples on how there has been an evolution in plan components such as plan goals, objectives and strategies, as well as partnership organizational structures and how the structures are suited to address priority issues within the plan.

Results: Cancer plans have evolved from dense long plans to more streamlined short documents. Plans are now written for a broader audience, often citing specific actions for individuals and organizations to take in order to help implement the plan. CCC partnerships have not only changed their approach to the development of their cancer plans, but also their approach to implementing their plans. Selection of cancer plan priorities and re-structuring the partnership to best implement the priorities has resulted in more efficient and effective partnership efforts.

Conclusions/Implications: The overall shift in CCC plans are more streamlined and thus appeal to a broader group of key stakeholders. CCC partnerships are more systematic in updating plans with an increased committment towards feasible implementation of the plan. This change in cancer plans and how they are implemented can have a significant positive effect on priority cancer issues across the nation.

Evolution of Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans and Partnerships: Impact and Key Success Factors

Author:

Leslie Given (Presenter)
Strategic Health Concepts

Public Health Statement: Comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and partnerships have evolved since 1998, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began funding the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program to support the development and implementation of CCC plans across the US. CCC plans are more streamlined, CCC partnerships are more focused and the process of implementation of a CCC plan has become more strategic.

Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to describe the impact that this evolution of CCC plans and partnerships has had on CCC efforts in the US, as well as key factors for success that CCC partnerships can utilize as they move forward with plan implementation.

Methods/Approach: The impact of this evolution of CCC plans and partnerships and key success factors for the future will be derived from CCC plan reviews, experiences working with CCC partnerships to improve functioning, individual CCC plan implementation and partnership evaluation results, and individual CCC partnership strategic planning results.

Results: The results of these reviews and experiences include the following impacts on CCC: 1) streamlined and user-friendly CCC plans with measurable objectives and action-oriented strategies are more likely to be implemented; 2) CCC partnerships that adapt to evolving needs in terms of how they are structured will be more successful in engaging key partners, at all levels; and 3) CCC plan implementation is more successful when driven by priority setting that enables CCC partnerships to find their unique or value-added role in cancer control efforts.

Conclusions/Implications: Key success factors for CCC partnerships to consider include: 1) Simplify CCC plans to maximize utility for a broad audience, 2) Maintain flexibility in CCC partnerhsip structures so that form follows function, and 3) Set priorities for plan implementation based on criteria that includes value-added role for the partnership.

Evolution of Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans and Partnerships: Kansas’ Perspective

Author:

Julie Sergeant (Presenter)
Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Public Health Statement: Kansas capacity for cancer prevention and control has increased since the development of the first state cancer plan in 2002. Subsequent versions of the state cancer plan have become more streamlined and Kansas Cancer Partnership, the state cancer coalition evolved as state capacity has increased.

Purpose: This panel presentation will describe the evolution of Kansas’ state cancer plans and partnerships, and how this improved the functioning of Kansas Cancer Partnership. Kansas is a large, rural state with a population of less than 3 million. This presentation will describe solutions for overcoming challenges to active partner engagement, adequate representation on the state cancer coalition, broad input from diverse populations into state cancer plan objectives, and identification of evidence-based strategies appropriate for local environments that range from frontier to urban and predominately Caucasian to ethnic/racial minority and refugee populations.

Methods/Approach: This panelist will describe Kansas strategies for structuring the state cancer coalition, actively engaging a broad base of constituents, developing regional cancer coalitions and producing state cancer plans. Decision-making processes will also be shared. Strategies included use of focus groups, “expert reviewers,” various workgroup configurations, a regional coalition structure and review of other states’ cancer plans and processes. Decision-making was based on cancer surveillance data, alignment with other public health and health care networks, value-added coalition contributions and constituent input.

Results: Outcomes included strengthened coalition leadership and increased number of Kansans representing urban and rural constituents who were actively engaged in cancer prevention and control. Coalition activities were better aligned with other public health initiatives (e.g., tobacco use reduction, increased immunizations) and evidence-based interventions successfully addressed multiple state cancer plan objectives. Outcomes also included increased capacity for data and evaluation.

Conclusions/Implications: In conclusion, Kansas Cancer Partnership’s successes were built on: 1) streamlined and user-friendly state cancer plans with measurable objectives and action-oriented strategies that facilitated evaluation; 2) a state cancer coalition that was willing to restructure; and 3) priorities that maximized the unique and value-added contributions of collaboration.

Evolution of Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans and Partnerships: Setting Priorities and Focusing Implementation Efforts

Authors:

Dilhara Muthukuda (Presenter)
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Polly Hager, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Public Health Statement: Michigan’s cancer coalition, the Michigan Cancer Consortium (MCC), is comprised of over 100 organizations around the state. The Michigan Cancer Plan consists of 36 objectives across 4 key areas of the cancer continuum: prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment, and quality of life. It was recognized that the MCC does not have the capacity to actively implement all 36 objectives and corresponding strategies at once. In order to be more strategic in implementing the plan, the MCC involved many partners in a process to select priorities.

Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to describe the priority setting process for focused implementation of Michigan’s cancer plan. How the structure of the consortium changed to accommodate the implementation efforts will be explained.

Methods/Approach: In order to select priorities, the MCC used a process that involved subject matter experts, its evaluation committee and Board of Directors. MCC members voted on objectives within the four goal areas. The top ranking objectives were then presented to the MCC Board to discuss the feasibility and impact of achieving those objectives.

Results: The MCC board selected one objective as the priority for each goal area to focus implementation efforts for two years. Existing committees within the consortium adapted their membership to take on the work of the priority objectives.

Conclusions/Implications: Choosing priorities to focus on for a set time period made the work of the implementing the cancer plan more manageable and is expected to yield a measurable impact on the cancer burden.