Skip to main content
Log in

Models for local implementation of comprehensive cancer control: meeting local cancer control needs through community collaboration

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The comprehensive cancer control approach is used by state, tribes, tribal organizations, territorial and Pacific Island Jurisdiction cancer coalitions to spur local implementation of cancer plans to reduce the burden of cancer in jurisdictions across the country. There is a rich diversity of models and approaches to the development of relationships and scope of planning for cancer control activities between coalitions and advocates in local communities. The national comprehensive cancer control philosophy provides an operational framework while support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention enables coalitions to act as catalysts to bring local partners together to combat cancer in communities. This manuscript describes multiple characteristics of cancer coalitions and how they are organized. Two models of how coalitions and local partners collaborate are described. A case study method was used to identify how five different state and tribal coalitions use the two models to organize their collaborations with local communities that result in local implementation of cancer plan priorities. Conclusions support the use of multiple organizing models to ensure involvement of diverse interests and sensitivity to local cancer issues that encourages implementation of cancer control activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA et al (2009) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116:544–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute (2010) Milestone 1971 The National Cancer Act. http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/timeline/noflash/milestones/M4_Nixon.htm. Access 21 May 2010

  3. Brinkley WR, Wood J, Garrison HH (1988) Increased funding for NIH: a biomedical science perspective. FASEB J 12:1431–1435

    Google Scholar 

  4. Herin M (2010) Deaths: Leading causes for 2006. National vital statistics reports. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_14.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2010

  5. Deaths, percent of total deaths, and death rates for the 15 leading causes of death: United States and each state, 2005. Atlanta (GA): Centers for disease control and prevention; 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ dvs/LCWK9_2005.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2010

  6. Lisovicz N, Wynn T, Fouad M, Partride E (2008) Cancer health disparities: what we have done. Am J Med Sci 335(4):254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frieden TR, Myers JE, Krauskopf MS, Farley TA (2008) A public health approach to winning the war on cancer. Oncologist 13:1306–1313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Given LS, Black B, Lowry G et al (2005) Collaborating to conquer cancer a comprehensive approach to cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 16(Suppl.1):3–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman C (2009) The promise of comprehensive cancer control. Preventing chronic disease 6 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/oct/09_0085.htm. Accessed 24 May 2010

  10. C-Change. Ten year history supported by the CCC national partnership. http://www.c-changetogether.org/pubs/pubs/Comp_Cancer_Ctrl_10Yrs.pdf

  11. Koh HK, Walker DK (2003) The role of state health agencies in cancer prevention and control: lessons learned from Massachusetts. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12(3):261s–268s

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Georgeson M, Thorpe LE, Medino M et al (2005) Shortchanged? An assessment of chronic disease programming in major US city health departments. J Urban Health 82:183–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Frieden TR (2004) Asleep at the switch: local public health and chronic disease. Am J Public Health 94:2059–2061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Himmelman AT (2001) On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. Am J Community Psychol 29(1):277–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Behringer.

Additional information

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Behringer, B., Lofton, S. & Knight, M.L. Models for local implementation of comprehensive cancer control: meeting local cancer control needs through community collaboration. Cancer Causes Control 21, 1995–2004 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9655-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9655-x

Keywords

Navigation