Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control

Unpacking Technical Assistance (TA) Strategies Within a State-Level Prevention Support System: A Mixed-Method Study in Determining Types and Amount of TA

The research-practice gap between evidence-based intervention efficacy and its uptake in real-world contexts remains a central challenge for prevention and implementation science. Providing technical assistance (TA) is considered a crucial support mechanism that can help narrow the gap. However, empirical measurement of TA strategies and their variation is often lacking. The current study unpacks the black box of TA, highlighting different TA strategies, amounts, and their relation to intervention characteristics. First, we qualitatively categorized interactions between TA providers and implementers. Second, we explored how characteristics of implementing organizations and the intervention related to variations in the amount of TA delivered. Using data spanning six years, we analyzed over 10,000 encounters between TA providers and implementers. Content analysis yielded four distinct strategies: Consultation (27.2%), Coordination Logistics (24.5%), Monitoring (16.5%), and Resource Delivery (28.2%). Organizations with prior experience required less monitoring and resource delivery. Additionally, characteristics of the intervention were significantly associated with the amount of consultation, monitoring, coordination logistics, and resource delivery provided. The specific features of the intervention showed significant variation in their relation to TA strategies. These findings provide initial insights into the implications of intervention characteristics in determining how much of which TA strategies are needed to support implementations in real-world settings.

Implementation of a novel program to support colorectal cancer screening in a community health center consortium before and after the onset of COVID-19: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) established the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program to provide technical assistance and financial support to improve CRC screening processes, and outcomes in a consortium of community health centers (CHCs) serving low-income communities in San Francisco. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the perceived influence of the support provided by the CRC Screening Program's Task Force on CRC screening processes and outcomes in these settings and to identify facilitators and barriers to SF CAN-supported CRC screening activities before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with consortium leaders, medical directors, quality improvement team members, and clinic screening champions. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed for themes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop the interview questions and organize the analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were interviewed. The most commonly cited facilitators of improved screening processes included the expertise, funding, screening resources, regular follow-up, and sustained engagement with clinic leaders provided by the task force. The most salient barriers identified were patient characteristics, such as housing instability; staffing challenges, such as being understaffed and experiencing high staff turnover; and clinic-level challenges, such as lack of ability to implement and sustain formalized patient navigation strategies, and changes in clinic priorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other competing health care priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing CRC screening programs in a consortium of CHCs is inherently challenging. Technical assistance from the Task Force was viewed positively and helped to mitigate challenges both before and during the pandemic. Future research should explore opportunities to increase the robustness of technical assistance offered by groups such as SF CAN to support cancer screening activities in CHCs serving low-income communities.

Technical Assistance and Training Needs of Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs: a Qualitative Analysis

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) was established in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to advance national cancer control implementation across US states and affiliated tribes and territories. To build capacity of NCCCP recipients, technical assistance and training (TAT) is offered in the form of online trainings, webinars, toolkits, workshops, tip sheets, and other products. To determine TAT needs of NCCCP recipients, the George Washington University (GW) Cancer Center conducted a qualitative evaluation to inform TAT planning and implementation. Data on the utilization, applicability, impact, and dissemination of TAT received were collected from comprehensive cancer control practitioners through semi-structured interviews. Detailed memos of interviewee responses were documented and deductively coded based on three themes: promotion of TAT, use of existing TAT, and recommendations for future TAT. Interviewees reported a need for diverse topics, modalities, and TAT reminders. The most widely used TAT resources were social media toolkits, webinars, newsletters, patient navigation resources, and online trainings. Recommendations for future TAT included a focus on coalition support, adaptation and evaluation of evidence-based cancer control strategies, and health equity. Offering a blend of TAT, including educational webinars and trainings, was preferred by CCC professionals and could increase use. Future TAT will provide new opportunities for coalition capacity building, adaptation of evidence-based strategies for cancer control, and center health equity.

A scoping review of the evaluation and effectiveness of technical assistance

Background

Although the benefits of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for advancing community outcomes are well-recognized, challenges with the uptake of EBPs are considerable. Technical assistance (TA) is a core capacity building strategy that has been widely used to support EBP implementation and other community development and improvement efforts. Yet despite growing reliance on TA, no reviews have systematically examined the evaluation of TA across varying implementation contexts and capacity building aims. This study draws on two decades of peer-reviewed publications to summarize the evidence on the evaluation and effectiveness of TA.

Methods

Guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage methodological framework, we used a scoping review methodology to map research on TA evaluation. We included peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2000 and 2020. Our search involved five databases: Business Source Complete, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, and PubMed.

Results

A total of 125 evaluation research studies met the study criteria. Findings indicate that publications have increased over the last two decades, signaling a growth in the recognition and reporting of TA. Technical assistance is being implemented across diverse settings, often serving socially vulnerable and under-resourced populations. Most evaluation research studies involved summative evaluations, with TA outcomes mostly reported at the organizational level. Only 5% of the studies examined sustainability of TA outcomes. This review also demonstrates that there is a lack of consistent standards regarding the definition of TA and the level of reporting across relevant TA evaluation categories (e.g., cadence of contact, and directionality).

Conclusions

Advances in the science and practice of TA hinge on understanding what aspects of TA are effective and when, how, and for whom these aspects of TA are effective. Addressing these core questions requires (i) a standard definition for TA; (ii) more robust and rigorous evaluation research designs that involve comparison groups and assessment of direct, indirect, and longitudinal outcomes; (iii) increased use of reliable and objective TA measures; and (iv) development of reporting standards. We view this scoping review as a foundation for improving the state of the science and practice of evaluating TA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00314-1.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN): Advancing public health and implementation science

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is one of the thematic networks of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Prevention Research Centers. Network members are academic research centers in the United States who collaborate with public health and community partners to accelerate the use of evidence-based interventions in communities to reduce the burden of cancer, especially among underserved populations. CPCRN studies include geographically dispersed populations, cross-institution partnerships, and opportunities for collaborative learning across network centers. Since its inception in 2002, CPCRN has worked to translate research on community-based intervention strategies into practice to improve cancer screening and reduce cancer risk. This commentary describes CPCRN's role in contributing to public health and the field of dissemination and implementation science. In addition, CDC and the National Cancer Institute describe how their joint support of the network contributes to each organization's goals and missions.

Comprehensive cancer control in the U.S.: summarizing twenty years of progress and looking ahead

In order to celebrate the accomplishments of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP), the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partners (CCCNP) developed this Special Issue on Cancer Causes and Control. This, the third Special Issue on Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC), is a reflection of 20 years of building successful partnerships to prevent and control cancer; planning and implementing strategic cancer control; collaborating to address national cancer prevention and control priorities; evaluating efforts; sharing successes; and, in later years, serving as a model for global cancer control planning and implementation. The CDC currently supports cancer control planning and implementation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, eight tribes or tribal organizations, and seven Pacific Island Jurisdictions and U.S. territories through the NCCCP. CCC is an approach that brings together multi-sector partners to address the cancer burden in a community collectively by leveraging existing resources and identifying and addressing cancer related issues and needs. The Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership (CCCNP), a partnership of national organizations, has been committed to supporting comprehensive cancer control efforts since 1999. We summarize the efforts described in this Special Issue. We also describe opportunities and critical elements to continue the momentum for comprehensive cancer control well into the future.