EBA / TACTIC Workgroup Report Maria E. Fernandez, PhD and Pat Dolan Mullen, DrPH Latinos in Network for Cancer Control University of Texas School of Public Health

CPCRN Signature Project Development of a web-based tool to increase the use of EBAs in communities (TACTIC) EBA Resources and Training Inventory CDC Conference - Audience Participation EBA Partner Needs Assessment Survey Partner Validation Interviews ASPO presentations on Cancer Control Planners’ views of EBAs & Development of TACTIC R25E Grant submission

EBA Resources and Inventory Provide a list of resources - cancer prevention and control EBAs with descriptions of particular features of each resource. – focus; cost; language level; availability and helpfulness, usability (ease of navigation, links to other resources); types of information about specific programs. Selected major resources sponsored by federal government agencies, voluntary organizations and foundations.

CDC Conference Participants – 63 attendees of EBA session Methods – Speakers asked questions Audience characteristics Use of resources Opinions about EBAs – Audience responded w/ hand-held devices

CDC Conference Results 2/3 participants spend >50% of their time planning & implementing programs Use of resources varies – 35% use R-TIPs – 59% use Community Guide – 72% use P.L.A.N.E.T. Most find EBAs challenging – 32% agree that they are easy to find & get – 24% agree they are easy to adapt

CDC Conference Audience Response Many cancer control program planners feel pressure from funders to use EBAs, Difficult finding and implementing EBAs Unaware of and/or not using existing online resources It is important to better understand how to further support practitioners in finding, implementing, and adapting EBAs.

CPCRN Partner Survey Each CPCRN surveyed > 30 partners Survey available on-line & on paper – Key survey domains included Participant characteristics Cancer control program development process Perceptions of evidence-based programs Use of Guide, PLANET, R-TIPs Training needs to adapt & implement evidence-based programs Participants offered $20 Amazon gift card

Partner Survey Participants 282 completed survey 240 were retained for analyses – These participants had implemented programs in the past year Most participants – Work at local level (65%) – For organizations with < 50 staff (57%) – Have high-speed internet access (92%)

Sources of Cancer Control Programs Participants’ reasons for using/adapting existing programs – 53% - scientific evidence the program works – 44% - free or low cost – 43% - easy to implement Participants could choose > 1 response

Use of Resources 80-85% of those who had ever used these resources rated them as somewhat or very useful

Top Perceived Training Needs Among respondents never using resources – Find & secure additional resources (81%) – Assess & use current resources (64%) – Obtain program materials (63%) – Develop implementation & evaluation plan (62%) Among respondents using 1+ resources – Find & secure additional resources (70%) – Adapt program/materials for cultural appropriateness (70%) – Identify which program aspects can be changed (65%) – Develop implementation & evaluation plan (65%)

Use of Resources 80-85% of those who had ever used these resources rated them as somewhat or very useful

Collaboration through the CPCRN Consortium – CPCRN Steering Committee as Advisory Com; great input throughout proposal development From the Community – Current partners participating in the production of TACTIC and dissemination planning Tailored Assistance for Choosing Tested Cancer Control Tools in Communities (TACTIC)

TACTIC Screenshots

Partner Validation Interviews Conducted face to face interviews with selected community partners Feedback and suggestions about the practical utility and relevance of the tool and provide suggestion for modifying program objectives, modules, or content areas.

Tailored Assistance for Choosing Tested Cancer Control Tools in Communities (TACTIC) Sent R25E application to NCI last week – Thank you, Larissa! Collaboration throughout the CPCRN Consortium – Texas: Lead (Mullen, Fernandez, Bartholomew) – Emory: Evaluation (Kegler, Escoffery, Carvalho, Swan) – Wash U/SLU: Interface (Kreuter, Pfeiffer, Ross) – Coord Ctr/Mass, Morehouse, UCLA, UNC, UW: Collaborators, Co-I’s (Bowen, Hannon, Glenn, Mistry, Reese, Ribisl, Williams) – CPCRN Steering Committee PI’s: Advisory Group (Bastani, Blumenthal, Glanz, Melvin, Sorenson, Taylor)

Collaboration through the CPCRN Consortium – CPCRN Steering Committee as Advisory Committee - great input throughout proposal development From the Community – Current partners participating in the production of TACTIC and dissemination planning Tailored Assistance for Choosing Tested Cancer Control Tools in Communities (TACTIC)

ASPO Presentations “Cancer control planners’ views of evidence-based approaches (EBAs),” “Development of a Computer-Based Training and Planning Tool for Increasing Use of Evidence-Based Approaches (EBAs) for Cancer Control,”

Agenda Further development of TACTIC Future Collaboration

Pathways for the Progression of TACTIC in Interim How do we continue to collaborate to maintain momentum? Presentation Papers Spin off grant proposals Template Development

Papers Partner survey paper – Hannon et al. TACTIC Development – Fernandez et al. Inventory of resources – Mullen et al. Framework for identifying “active ingredients” of interventions – Bartholomew, Mullen, Fernandez et al.

Presentations ASPO March 2008 CDC Chronic Disease Conference SBM CDC Cancer Conference

Spinoff Grant Proposals Emory – EBA Measurement - R03(?)

Template Development

Merging of Minds – EBA and Dissemination Workgroup How can we work together?