Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 1163–1171 | Cite as

Examining comprehensive cancer control partnerships, plans, and program interventions: successes and lessons learned from a utilization-focused evaluation

  • Trina PyronEmail author
  • Jamila Fonseka
  • Monique Young
  • LaTisha Zimmerman
  • Angela R. Moore
  • Nikki Hayes
Original Paper


The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program has experienced exponential growth over the past 20 years due to the coordination and collaboration of many stakeholders to sustain multisector coalitions, develop and execute data-driven plans, and successfully implement evidenced-based interventions across the United States. These stakeholders have worked tirelessly to address the burden of cancer by employing strategies that promote healthy behaviors to reduce cancer risk, facilitate screening, and address the needs of cancer survivors. The interaction between the comprehensive cancer control program and the coalitions to engage in this work has been coined the 3Ps: the partnership, the CCC plan, and CCC program interventions. This article describes the efforts to evaluate the growth of the comprehensive cancer control movement, especially as it pertains to coalition contribution, plan priority development and implementation, and intervention implementation. It describes successes and lessons learned from an evaluation whose findings can be used to bolster and sustain comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions across the U.S.


Comprehensive cancer control Evaluation Program improvement Coalition Primary prevention Screening Survivorship Disparities 


  1. 1.
    Given LS, Black B, Lowry G, Huang P, Kerner JF (2005) Collaborating to conquer cancer: a comprehensive approach to cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 16(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rochester PW, Townsend JS, Given L, Krebill H, Balderrama S, Vinson C (2010) Comprehensive cancer control: progress and accomplishments. Cancer Causes Control 21(12):1967–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Comprehensive Cancer Control Branch Program evaluation toolkit. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. National Center of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rochester P, Chapel T, Black B, Bucher J, Housemann R (2005) The evaluation of comprehensive cancer control efforts: useful techniques and unique requirements. Cancer Causes Control 16(1):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of Health and Human Services (2012) DP12-1205: Cancer Prevention and Control Program for state, Territorial and Tribal Organizations. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steele CB, Rose JM, Chovnick G, Townsend JS, Stockmyer CK, Fonseka J, Richardson LC (2015) Use of evidence-based practices and resources among Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs. J Publ Health Manag Pract JPHMP 21(5):441–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Puckett M, Neri A, Underwood JM, Stewart SL (2016) Nutrition and physical activity strategies for cancer prevention in Current National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program plans. J Commun Health 41(5):1013–1020. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seeff LC, Major A, Townsend JS, Provost E, Redwood D, Espey D, Dwyer D, Villanueva R, Larsen L, Rowley K, Leonard B (2010) Comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions: partnering to launch successful colorectal cancer screening initiatives. Cancer Causes Control CCC 21(12):2023–2031. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Underwood JM, Lakhani N, Finifrock D, Pinkerton B, Johnson KL, Mallory SH, Migliore Santiago P, Stewart SL (2015) Evidence-based cancer survivorship activities for comprehensive cancer control. Am J Prev Med 49(6):S536–S542. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patton MQ (2008) Utilization-focused evaluation. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patton MQ (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Townsend JS, Moore AR, Mulder TN, Boyd M (2015) What does a performance measurement system tell us about the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program? J Publ Health Manag Pract 21(5):449–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Comprehensive cancer control plan search. US Department of Health and Human Services, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart SL, Hayes N, Moore AR, Bailey R, Brown P, Wanliss E (2018) Combating cancer through public health practice in the United States: an in-depth look at the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program. In: Majumder AA (ed) Public health—emerging and reemerging issues. Intech, RijekaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer UE, Briss PA, Goodman RA, Bowman BA (2014) Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA. Lancet 384(9937):45–52. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frieden TR (2014) Six components necessary for effective public health program implementation. Am J Publ Health 104(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Partnership CCCN (2018) About us. Accessed 18 July 2018

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Comprehensive Cancer Control Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations