Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 1995–2004 | Cite as

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

  • Bruce Behringer
  • Staci Lofton
  • Margaret L. Knight
Original paper

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.

Keywords

Comprehensive cancer control Local implementation of state health plans Cancer coalitions 

References

  1. 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 116:544–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 3.
    Brinkley WR, Wood J, Garrison HH (1988) Increased funding for NIH: a biomedical science perspective. FASEB J 12:1431–1435Google Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 6.
    Lisovicz N, Wynn T, Fouad M, Partride E (2008) Cancer health disparities: what we have done. Am J Med Sci 335(4):254–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frieden TR, Myers JE, Krauskopf MS, Farley TA (2008) A public health approach to winning the war on cancer. Oncologist 13:1306–1313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):3–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 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–268sPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 82:183–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frieden TR (2004) Asleep at the switch: local public health and chronic disease. Am J Public Health 94:2059–2061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Himmelman AT (2001) On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. Am J Community Psychol 29(1):277–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Behringer
    • 1
  • Staci Lofton
    • 2
  • Margaret L. Knight
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Health SciencesEast Tennessee State UniversityJohnson CityUSA
  2. 2.Division of Cancer ControlComprehensive Cancer Control Branch, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.New Jersey Department of HealthOffice of Cancer Control and PreventionTrentonUSA

Personalised recommendations