Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp I27–I30 | Cite as

The Imperative of Strategic Alignment Across Organizations: The Experience of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation

  • Roy Cameron
  • Barbara L. Riley
  • H. Sharon Campbell
  • Stephen Manske
  • Kim Lamers-Bellio
Article

Abstract

The Canadian Cancer Society’s Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation (CBRPE) is a national asset for building pan-Canadian capacity to support intervention studies that guide population-level policies and programs. This paper briefly describes CBRPE’s experience in advancing this work in the field of prevention. The aim is to illuminate issues of central importance for advancing the goals of the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada. According to our experience, success in building the population intervention field will depend heavily on purposeful alignment across organizations to enable integration of research, evaluation, surveillance, policy and practice. CBRPE’s capacity development roles include a) a catalytic role in shaping this aligned inter-organizational milieu and b) investing our resources in building tangible assets (teams, indicators, data systems) that contribute relevant capacities within this emerging milieu. Challenges in building capacity in this field are described.

Key words

Population health; intervention studies capacity building organizational alignment 

Résumé

Le Centre de recherche sur le comportement et d’évaluation des programmes (CRCÉP) de la Société canadienne du cancer est un atout national pour le développement des capacités pancanadiennes à l’appui d’études interventionnelles qui orienteront les politiques et les programmes axés sur les populations. Dans cet article, nous décrivons brièvement l’expérience du CRCÉP à cet égard dans le domaine de la prévention. Notre objectif est d’éclairer les enjeux déterminants pour faire progresser l’Initiative de recherche interventionnelle en santé des populations du Canada (IRISPC). D’après notre expérience, le renforcement des interventions axées sur la population dépendra beaucoup d’une concordance délibérée entre les organismes en cause pour permettre l’intégration de la recherche, de l’évaluation, de la surveillance, des politiques et des pratiques. En matière de renforcement des capacités, le CRCÉP joue un double rôle: a) il est un catalyseur qui favorise la concordance entre les organismes du milieu et b) il investit ses ressources dans la création d’actifs tangibles (équipes, indicateurs, systèmes de données) qui élargissent les capacités dans le milieu émergeant. Nous décrivons les difficultés associées au renforcement des capacités dans ce domaine.

Mots clés

santé des populations études interventionnelles renforcement des capacités concordance organisationnelle 

References

  1. 1.
    Abegunde D, Beaglehole R, Durivage S, Epping-Jordan J, Mathers C, Shengelia B, et al. Preventing Chronic Diseases: A Vital Investment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2005.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grunfeld E, Zitzelsberger L, Hayter C, Berman N, Cameron R, Evans WK, et al. The role of knowledge translation for cancer control in Canada. Chron Dis Can 2004;25(2):1–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Luke DA. Shaping the context of health: A review of environmental and policy approaches in the prevention of chronic diseases. Annu Rev Public Health 2006;27:341–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Millward LM, Kelly MP, Nutbeam D. Public Health Intervention Research: The Evidence. London: Health Development Agency, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, et al. Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: Examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can J Public Health 2005;96(3):I1–I19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell DT. Guidelines for monitoring the scientific competence of preventive intervention research centers: An exercise in the sociology of scientific validity. Sci Commun 1987;8(3):389–430.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Association of Schools of Public Health. Community and Academia Working Together. Report of the Association of Schools of Public Health Prevention Research Centers Blue Ribbon Panel. Washington, DC: ASPH, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLean S, Feather J, Butler-Jones D. Building Health Promotion Capacity. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Connolly C. Setting the Stage for an Integrated System for Chronic Disease Prevention Research in Canada: Background Paper. Ottawa, ON: Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Advisory Committee on Cancer Control, National Cancer Institute of Canada. CMAJ 1994;151:1141–46.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cameron R, Campbell S, Manske S, Riley B. Commitment to Impact: Shaping the Future of the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation. Report for the 2007 Scientific Review. Waterloo, ON: Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asselbergs M, Birdsell J. Moving to Action: Integrating Research, Policy and Practice in Chronic Disease Prevention: Workshop Report. Ottawa, ON: Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Hyland A, Giovino GA, et al. The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) policy evaluation project. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii3–iii11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, Hastings G, McNeill A, et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the republic of Ireland: Findings from the ITC Ireland/UK survey. Tob Control 2006;15(Suppl 3):iii51–iii58.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green LW. Public health asks of systems science: To advance our evidence-based practice, can you help us get more practice-based evidence? Am J Public Health 2006;96(3):406–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell HS, Ossip-Klein D, Bailey L, Saul J; North American Quitline Consortium. Minimal dataset for quitlines: A best practice. Tob Control 2007;16(Suppl 1):i16–i20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Copley TT, Lovato C, O’Connor S. Indicators for Monitoring Tobacco Control: A Resource for Decision-Makers, Evaluators and Researchers. On Behalf of the National Advisory Group on Monitoring and Evaluation. Toronto, ON: Canadian Tobacco Control Research Initiative, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leatherdale ST, Cameron R, Brown KS, Jolin M, Kroeker C. The influence of friends, family and older peers on smoking among elementary school students: Low risk students in high risk schools. Prev Med 2006;42(3):218–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cameron R, Manske S, Brown KS, Jolin MA, Murnaghan D, Lovato C. Integrating public health policy, practice, evaluation, surveillance, and research using local data collection and feedback systems: The example of the School Health Action Planning and Evaluation System (SHAPES). Am J Public Health 2007;97:648–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collins J. Good to Great. New York, NY: Harper Business, 2001;19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy Cameron
    • 1
  • Barbara L. Riley
    • 1
  • H. Sharon Campbell
    • 1
  • Stephen Manske
    • 1
  • Kim Lamers-Bellio
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Behavioural Research and Program EvaluationUniversity of Waterloo, Lyle S. Hallman Institute NorthWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations