CCC and the CPCRN Garry Lowry, MPH Mary Frost CCC Regional Public Health Advisor Mary Frost Director, Chronic Disease Prevention and Risk Reduction Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network Meeting Seattle, WA – October 6, 2005 Garry – slides 1 through 6, Mary – slides 7 and 8

CCC Continuum of care (prevention through end-of-life) Diverse stakeholders PLAN to address priority cancer issues Evidence based intervention Evaluation of approach AND of interventions CCC focuses on a broad range of cancer issues CCC involves a broad range of stakeholders including: researchers, health care providers, public health professionals, insurers, survivors… CCC involves developing plans to address the priority cancer issues identified by reviewing the best available data and evidence CCC involves implementing evidence based interventions to the degree that such interventions are available CCC involves evaluating both the CCC approach and the effectiveness of interventions, particularly when interventions have limited evidence

CCC (in Washington) Vision Goal A system of cancer prevention and control in WA that involves key stakeholders working collaboratively to assess and address priority cancer issues Goal Reduce the burden of cancer in WA

CPCRN Vision and Mission of CPCRN Communities and researchers working together to reduce the burden of cancer, especially among those disproportionately affected, through developing local and national-level infrastructure to: Conduct research on the effectiveness of community-based interventions for which evidence is insufficient to justify a Guide recommendation, using research designs and methods considered appropriate by the Guide. Conduct research replicating Guide-recommended intervention approaches and research-tested intervention programs in populations and settings where they have not been adequately evaluated. Conduct research on how to disseminate Guide-recommended intervention approaches and research-tested intervention programs into populations and community-based settings where they have been previously tested and shown to be efficacious and effective. Conduct evaluations of the implementation and effectiveness of community-based programs. Our visions are very similar – collaboration is a common element CCC partnerships may conduct interventions for which evidence is insufficient – a prime opportunity for CPCRN research Replication research is a potential for many partnerships and their implementation efforts CCC partnerships are concerned about effectively reducing the burden of cancer – a prime opportunity for CPCRN influence on CCC implementation efforts through dissemination of evidence based interventions CCC partnerships need evaluation expertise for their implementation efforts Source: CPCRN website - http://www.cpcrn.org/about.html

History of Relationship in WA Jeff Harris active in WCCCP Primary and Secondary Prevention Work Group ARC NW written into CRC and PCa grants for “assessment and evaluation” activities Tasks – survey providers, analyze existing data sets, develop guidelines and recommendations for intervention ARC NW was an active partner during the planning process through Jeff Harris’ participation on the Primary and Secondary Prevention Work Group DOH public health nurse consultant wrote grant application for CRC, CRC Task Force involvement, recognized value of ARC NW as a partner and their unique capacity and role for doing this kind of work Grant focused on the assessment and data analysis needed to guide intervention efforts in WA

CCC and the CPCRN Or, WCCCP and ARC NW Assessment Report RFP Peggy Hannon Assessment Report Deb Bowen RFP Intro – public health practice: like a relay race…smooth passing of the baton Assessment – do we know enough about CRC in WA to effectively promote screening (and PCa/informed decision making)? Report – analysis of existing data, analysis of KAP survey data collected, literature review --- recommendations for intervention RFP – soliciting, reviewing, and funding proposals for interventions based on the assessment and recommendations Interventions – community-based projects designed to increase CRC screening/promote informed decision making re: PCa screening Evaluation – measuring the outcomes of these interventions (do they work?) Interventions Evaluation

Value of Relationship in WA Goal is to utilize strengths of partners Health Department CCC programs value academic (university based) expertise Evaluation is a key need in CCC efforts Better public health practice Clear value for the CCC program and partnership Mary – slides 7 and 8 Our goal is to move the work forward by relying on the strengths of the various partners involved The Department of Health in WA has a long history of working with university-based researchers in chronic disease prevention/health promotion Evaluation is an area of need where university based researchers can serve as important partners Involvement of researchers in the planning, implementation, and evaluation leads to better public health practice, a higher potential to achieve important outcomes, and a greater ability to document effectiveness of our work. This has been a model effort to build better bridges between public health research and practice. I feel the work we’ve done here has clearly benefited our CCC program and our statewide partnership.

CDC CCC Field Staff, N = 9 Field Staff Regional Field Staff Field staff may be a resource for identifying contacts and building relationships with CCC programs and partnerships CDC has a number of field staff in the CCC program: Two field staff are assigned to work with the CCC program in a specific state – Arizona and North Dakota One field staff is assigned to work with the Cherokee Nation CCC program - Oklahoma Five field staff are assigned to work with CCC programs in a region of states – colored regions One field staff is assigned to work with tribal programs - Arizona Field Staff Regional Field Staff Tribal Programs Field Staff