Practitioners often require training and technical assistance to build their capacity to select, adapt, and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to promote CRC screening to increase population-level screening. This study identified the training and technical assistance (TA) needs and preferences for training related to the implementation of EBIs among CRCCP grantees.
Twenty-nine CRCCP grantees completed an online survey about their screening activities, training and technical assistance in 2012. They rated desire for training on various evidence-based strategies to increase cancer screening, evidence-based competencies, and program management topics. They also reported preferences for training formats and facilitators and barriers to trainings.
Many CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding finding EBIs, assessing organizational capacity, implementing selected EBIs, and conducting process and outcome evaluations. Other desired training topics reported with higher frequency were partnership development and data collection/evaluation. Grantees preferred training formats that were interactive such as on-site trainings, webinars or expert consultants.
Public health organizations need greater supports for adopting evidence-based interventions, working with organizational-level change, partnership development and data management. Future capacity building efforts for the adoption of EBIs should focus on systems or provider level interventions and key processes for health promotion and should be delivered in a variety of ways to assist local organizations in cancer prevention and control.
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1386-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States [
Disseminating information about EBIs via electronic or print media (e.g., webinars, toolkits) is widely recognized as a necessary but insufficient step towards promoting the adoption and implementation of EBIs in practice [
The Interactive Systems Framework is a conceptual model that describes how organizations build capacity to use effective prevention interventions or strategies in communities [
CDC launched the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 in 25 states and four tribal organizations through cooperative agreements [
Grantees are encouraged to implement one or more of the five
The 2012 CRCCP Grantee Survey was self-administered online in Fall 2012, using DatStat Illume™. All CRCCP program directors (PDs, N = 29) received a personalized invitation email to complete the survey. The invitation was co-signed by CDC and the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) which is conducting annual grantee surveys in partnership with CDC. The CPCRN aims to promote the translation of cancer-related evidence-based practices into local communities [
The questionnaire covered several topics; data presented in this paper focus on respondents’ use of the Community Guide-recommended EBIs for CRC screening promotion, barriers to use, training and TA needs on the Community Guide-recommended EBIs and EBI-related competencies, and resources used by or provided to grantees to support EBI implementation. All items were pilot-tested to assess clarity and feasibility of survey completion. The Interactive Systems Framework served as a theoretical framework for the development of questions; some focused items on general capacity building in using EBIs and others on intervention-specific items (i.e., client or provider reminders) [
Grantees’ use of each of the five
Grantees self-rated their desire for additional EBI- related competencies on a three point scale (1 = low desire, 3 = high desire). Competency topics included identifying EBIs, assessing the strength of the evidence for an EBI, assessing EBI fit with their population, adapting EBIs, assessing organizational capacity to implement an EBI, and evaluating EBI implementation.
Respondents were asked to specify the resources they use (open-ended), to support their implementation of
Respondents selected from a list of the training and TA formats they preferred (e.g., on-site, online, real-time webinar, as needed consultation). Barriers to grantees’ participation in training and TA were measured by asking respondents to select up to three of the most significant barriers to their participation in training and TA from a list. Respondents used a 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = not at all satisfied, 5 = extremely satisfied) to rate their satisfaction with CDC-provided training and TA. Respondents were given the opportunity to also provide open-ended comments on how training and TA could be improved.
Respondents were asked to identify their needs for training or technical assistance for program implementation, in general, in the areas of 1) program management, 2) partnership development, 3) screening provision, and 4) data collection and evaluation. For each area, respondents selected up to three activities from a list for which they/their staff would like additional training or TA to support their CRCCP in the coming year.
Grantees entered data directly into DatStat Illume™ . The authors performed descriptive analyses of training and TA variables using SPSS version 21. Written text in partial close-ended questions were compiled and summarized.
All 29 program grantees completed the survey. Nearly all respondents were either the CRCCP program director (52%) or the program manager (45%), or held both titles (3%). Eighty-three percent had been involved with their CRCCP for at least 12 months while 45% had been involved for three years or more. The majority (62%) had been working in the field of cancer control for more than five years.
Information about the CRCCP grantees can be found in the Additional file
The majority of grantees reported using small media (97%), client/patient reminders (76%), and reducing structural barriers (59%) (Table
1Based on Likert-like scale where 1 = very difficult, 5 = very easy. Only grantees currently implementing a given EBI were asked to rate ease.
1Based on Likert-like scale where 1 = low, 3 = high.
N (%) N Mean (SD) N (%) Small Media 28 (97%) 26 3.65 (0.75) 2 (7%) Patient Reminders 22 (76%) 16 3.50 (1.03) 6 (21%) Provider Reminders 11 (38%) 10 3.40 (1.27) 12 (41%) Reducing Structural Barriers 17 (59%) 15 3.20 (1.08) 16 (55%) Provider Assessment and Feedback 13 (45%) 10 3.10 (1.20) 20 (69%)
Find evidence-based strategies or programs 2.32 2.00 0.71 Assess the strength of the evidence supporting program effectiveness 2.07 2.00 0.75 Assess the fit of potential strategies or programs with my population 2.03 2.00 0.73 Assess the fit of potential strategies or programs with my organization’s systems, staff, and resources 1.97 2.00 0.82 Assess organizational capacity to implement selected strategy 2.10 2.00 0.72 Adapt an evidence-based strategy or program to my population or setting 1.97 2.00 0.78 Implement a strategy/program with quality/fidelity 1.90 2.00 0.86 Conduct a process evaluation of an evidence-based strategy or program 1.86 2.00 1.86 Conduct an outcome evaluation of an evidence-based strategy 1.83 2.00 0.81
Specific evidence-based interventions employed by each CRCCP grantee can be found in the Additional file
The majority of grantees (69%) have access to someone who can help them apply evidence. In terms of the grantees own provision of training and TA, 41% offer training on using EBIs and 45% offer technical assistance to others on using EBIs for colorectal cancer prevention.
The majority of respondents reported a preference for training formats that are interactive in nature, including: on-site training/workshops (62%), real-time webinars (62%), and as-needed expert consultants (55%) (Table
1Participants could choose more than one response for training approaches, so percentages may sum to >100%.
On-site training/workshop 18 62% Real time webinar with archiving for future use 18 62% Expert consultant I can contact as needed 16 55% Peer network/collaborative group/community of practice 12 41% Online course 10 34% Self-directed print learning materials 4 14% CD-ROM/DVD training and resources 1 3% Other 1 3%
Program examples too different from my program to be helpful 16 55% State travel restrictions not related to cost 12 41% Information is typically too basic 11 38% No time 9 31% Information is impractical for everyday use 6 21% Real world examples are not typically provided 7 24% Money to cover travel costs 5 17% Other 5 17%
Grantees’ most frequently reported barrier to participating in training was the perception that program examples described during training were too different from their own program (55%). Other frequently reported barriers included travel restrictions not related to cost (41%) and a perception that the information provided at the training is too basic (38%). Only 17% of grantees reported that travel cost issues were a barrier to participation. On average, grantees reported moderate levels of satisfaction with both CDC-provided training (M = 3.14, SD = 0.95) and technical assistance (M = 3.17, SD = 1.00).
The five most frequently reported needs in each area of program implementation are summarized in Table
Comprehensive program planning 9 31% Integrating with other programs 6 21% Recruiting providers for screening provision 5 17% Communication 5 17% Working with or managing contractors 5 17%
Develop and maintain partnerships with private health insurers 16 55% Develop and maintain a relationship with your State Medicare and Medicaid office 12 41% Develop and maintain partnerships with private and nonprofit health care systems 11 38% Develop and maintain a partnership with FQHCs 7 24% Develop and maintain partnerships with professional organizations 5 17%
Develop, promote, or enhance training to educate health care professionals among program-funded providers 10 34% Support insurance enrollment 8 28% Ensure appropriate treatment for complications and cancers 7 24% Develop and promote quality control standards and mechanisms among program-funded providers 7 24% Convene and maintain a Community Advisory Board 6 21%
Identify and collect data from other sources (e.g., CRC screening rates from large health systems) 13 45% Conduct evaluation activities for your CRC efforts 11 38% Implement strategies to document and communicate program value to stakeholders (e.g. legislators, funders, administrators) 9 31% Use data for program monitoring and program improvement 7 24% Develop an evaluation plan for your CRC efforts (e.g., formative, process, outcome, impact) 6 21%
Collaboration Across CDC Cancer Programs Partnership Development Webinar QSST Presentation: Using CCDEs to Assess Screening Quality Data Management Webinar Improving Implementation of Evidence-based Interventions: The Example of Small Media EBI Implementation Webinar Academic Detailing Professional Development & Provider Education Webinar Using Logic Models as Tools for Planning and Evaluation Program Planning Webinar Improving Cancer Screening Outcomes in Rural Areas Program Outreach Webinar Cost Assessment Tool Training Data Management Webinar Systems Change via Provider Feedback Systems Change/EBI Implementation Webinar Community Health Workers: Examples from the Field Public Education & Targeted Outreach Webinar Key Considerations in Designing a Navigation Program Patient Navigation Webinar Population-Based and Systems Change Activities Systems Change/EBI Implementation Webinar Using Your PETO Logic Model for Program Planning Program Planning Webinar AMIGAS Project: Bilingual Education Outreach Intervention Program Outreach Webinar Systems and Policy Change Training Systems Change On-site Training Seizing Opportunities Provided by Expanded Clinical Preventive Services Public Education & Targeted Outreach Webinar
A large proportion of CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level EBIs and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs and fewer grantees reported use of these EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding many aspects of EBI implementation, from identifying EBIs and assessing organizational capacity to implement selected EBIs to conducting a process and outcome evaluation. CDC has provided webinars to grantees on many of these topics, but the moderate satisfaction rating of grantees with CDC training and TA suggests that there is room for improvement. CDC may benefit from gathering specific information from grantees on how to improve their training and TA efforts. Meeting grantees’ training and TA needs is important, as their capacity to implement EBIs will be crucial for meeting the program goal of increasing levels of CRC screening population-wide. Generally, the CRCCP grantees were using EBIs to increase colorectal cancer screening recommended by the CDC; however, they desired training and TA on the specific interventions that require organizational or systems changes, such as provider assessment and feedback and reducing structural barriers. Research-tested Intervention Programs (R.T.I.P.s) may be a useful resource for grantees to locate specific interventions with their implementation protocols and materials [
For general capacity building, we found that grantees desired training and TA on specific topics regarding EBIs such as identifying evidence-based strategies, assessing organizational capacity, adapting EBIs, and assessing the fit of potential strategies with their population. This is consistent with findings of previous research assessing training needs to increase the use of EBIs among other health professionals [
Many grantees preferred training formats that were interactive with content experts such as onsite training, webinars or expert consultants around the implementation of systems approaches for increasing screening; however, resource constraints often limit CDC staff from offering onsite or in-person training. While training is necessary, individualized TA may be more suitable to help organizations overcome the training barriers identified in this study (e.g., need for examples, more advanced information). Individualized TA can provide more in-depth information on how to implement a specific strategy and also address unique contextual factors (e.g., organizational systems such as paper records or electronic medical records, staffing, resources). These combinations of prevention support reported by grantees match the common strategies found in other studies that promote the adoption of EBIs such as in person training and TA [
In addition to systems approaches for increasing screening, the needs for training and TA around partnership development and program and data management were most frequently reported by grantees as critical training topics. Because there are still disparities in cancer screening, building grantees’ and other community organizations’ capacity to leverage or build partnerships such as those between clinical and community preventive services would promote screening [
These findings present some practical implications for CDC and other organizations supporting the use of EBIs. The diversity inherent in the aforementioned categories of training needs and preferences can be challenging for a systematically designed program such as the CRCCP. Recognizing this potential challenge, CDC proactively implements a four-pronged effort for training and TA which 1) establishes a Program Consultant for each grantee to provide in-person and/or telephonic individual, tailored TA on an ongoing basis, 2) establishes training and TA workgroups on specific topics (e.g., education and targeted outreach, quality assurance and patient navigation) that offer webinars and in-person training, 3) supports development of training or TA materials (e.g., action guides such as
Program Consultants provide individual TA and consultation to assigned grantees to support their planning, implementation and evaluation of each of their program components. TA and consultation includes individual assistance with the design and implementation of grantee program components and data monitoring and feedback to support quality assurance, program improvement, and program evaluation. These activities represent the types of support strategies recommended by the Evidence-based System for Innovation Support to increase adoption of EBIs: training, TA, tools and quality improvement [
CDC’s approach of establishing a Program Consultant for individualized TA and an education and targeted outreach team for universal training allows for greater responsiveness to the needs of grantees and also encourages grantees to continually keep the agency informed of their challenges and training desires. This level of communicative feedback is integral so that continual improvement can be made in overall CRCCP program outreach and management. In addition, because CDC instituted a performance-based grants management system in 2012 for annual funding of CRCCP grantees, CDC is able to integrate training and TA efforts with evaluation of grantee performance. CDC is then able to follow up with programs in need of assistance to increase their capacity.
This study has several limitations. Our findings are based on self-reported data from grantees who are funded for promoting CRC screening at the population level using EBIs and that have received a significant amount of training related to program implementation in general and related to specific EBIs. It is possible that training and TA needs are different, possibly greater, for other organizations or clinics that focus on colorectal screening promotion. In addition, we limited the focus of the desire for training and TA to currently recommended evidence-based practices. Grantees may also need guidance on other cancer promotion activities such as mass media campaigns, reducing screening costs, and group education, where the evidence has not been established or is insufficient.
Future research can explore the outcomes of training and TA on short-term changes such as knowledge and skills gained on how to implement EBIs. Further long-term evaluation can examine the adoption of recommended cancer prevention EBIs by public health organizations and subsequent impact on screening. While general training on the use of EBIs exists [
The goal of the CRCCP and other public health organizations is to increase colorectal cancer screening prevalence to 80% by 2018 [
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
CE, PH, and AM had the original idea for the study. PH and TV were responsible for data collection. PH, CE, AM, and TV carried out the data analysis. All authors participated in discussions. CE, PH, TV, JL, AD, SS, KR, and LG helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This publication was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network, a network within the CDC’s Prevention Research Centers Program (Emory University, U48DP001909; University of California at Los Angeles, U48DP001934; University of Colorado, U48DP001938; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U48DP001944; University of Washington, U48DP001911; Washington University, U48-DP001903).
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.