Welcome to CDC Stacks | What does a Performance Measurement System Tell Us about the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program? - 30345 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
What does a Performance Measurement System Tell Us about the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program?
Filetype[PDF - 427.73 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    25136936
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4374017
  • Funding:
    CC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Description:
    Context

    The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) performance measurement system seeks to understand both the processes that funded programs undertake with their respective coalitions to implement the objectives of their cancer plans and outcomes of those efforts.

    Objective

    To identify areas of achievement and technical assistance needs of NCCCP awardees.

    Design

    Program performance was assessed through surveys completed by program directors on performance indicators in 2009 and 2010 and queries from a web-based management information system in 2011 and 2012.

    Setting

    Programs funded by CDC’s NCCCP.

    Participants

    69 programs.

    Main Outcome Measure(s)

    The key performance measures assessed were: inclusion of diverse partners and key sectors in cancer coalitions; partners’ involvement in activities; receiving in-kind resources from partners; using evidence-based interventions and data for setting priorities; conducting program evaluation; using community- or organization-level strategies to address cancer control efforts; and demonstrating progress toward achieving health outcomes.

    Results

    Most programs reported having active coalitions that represent diverse organizational sectors. Nearly all programs routinely assess the burden of cancer. In-kind resources to implement activities peaked at $64,716 in the second year of a five year funding cycle, and declined in subsequent project years. By year 3, over 70% of programs reported having an evaluation plan. While programs reported that nearly two-thirds of their interventions were evidence-based, some programs implemented non-evidence-based interventions. A majority of programs successfully used at least one community- or organization-level change strategy. However, many programs did not incorporate objectives linked to health outcomes as they reported progress in implementing interventions. Conclusions: While NCCCP programs were strong at building and maintaining infrastructure, some programs may need additional technical assistance to increase the adoption of evidence-based interventions, develop solid and responsive evaluation plans, and better link efforts to population-based measures that demonstrate impact toward reducing the burden of cancer.