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



In 2015–2016, the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership provided technical assistance workshops to support 22 cancer coalitions in increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in their local communities. As national efforts continue to invest in providing technical assistance, there is a current gap in understanding its use as a strategy to accelerate implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technical assistance on the participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills for implementing EBIs in their local context and enhancing state team collaboration.


Data were collected August-November 2017 using web-based questionnaires from 44 HPV workshop participants and 66 CRC workshop participants.


Both HPV vaccination and CRC screening workshop participants reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to implementing EBIs in their local state context. Several participants reported increased abilities in communicating and coordinating with partners in their states and utilizing additional implementation strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake and CRC screening rates.


Findings from this study suggest that providing technical assistance to members of comprehensive cancer control coalitions is useful in promoting collaborations and building capacity for implementing EBIs for cancer prevention and control.

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

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Singer DS, Jacks T, Jaffee E (2016) “A US “Cancer Moonshot” to accelerate cancer research. Science 353(6304):1105–1106

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Munoz N (1999) Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 189(1):12–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199909)189:1%3C12::aid-path431%3E3.0.co;2-f

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rimer B, Harper H, Witte O (2014) Accelerating HPV vaccine uptake: urgency for action to prevent cancer; a report to the President of the United States from the President’s Cancer Panel. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Society AC (2016) Key statistics for colorectal cancer. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-key-statistics. Accessed 20 Oct 2016

  5. 5.

    Force USPST (2016) Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 315(23):2564–2575. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use–United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 62(44):881–888

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Honein-AbouHaidar GN, Kastner M, Vuong V, Perrier L, Daly C, Rabeneck L, Straus S, Baxter NN (2016) Systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies evaluating facilitators and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers

  8. 8.

    Paskett ED, Khuri FR (2015) Can we achieve an 80% screening rate for colorectal cancer by 2018 in the United States? Cancer 121(13):2127–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Eccles MP, Mittman BS (2006) Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci 1(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC (2013) Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 8(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hohman K, Rochester P, Kean T, Belle-Isle L (2010) The CCC National Partnership: an example of organizations collaborating on comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 21(12):1979–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Roundtable NCC (2014) Steps for increasing colorectal cancer screening rates: a manual for community health centers

  14. 14.

    Wandersman A, Chien VH, Katz J (2012) Toward an evidence-based system for innovation support for implementing innovations with quality: tools, training, technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement. Am J Community Psychol 50(3–4):445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Stetler CB, Legro MW, Rycroft-Malone J, Bowman C, Curran G, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, Pineros S, Wallace CM (2006) Role of” external facilitation” in implementation of research findings: a qualitative evaluation of facilitation experiences in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 1(1):23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cranley LA et al (2017) Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open 7(8):e014384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Snow J, Mann M (2013) Qualtrics survey software: handbook for research professionals. Qualtrics Labs Inc., Provo

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Neuendorf KA (2016) The content analysis guidebook. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Steele CB, Rose JM, Townsend JS, Fonseka J, Richardson LC, Chovnick G (2015) Comprehensive cancer control partners’ use of and attitudes about evidence-based practices. Prev Chronic Dis 12:E113. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.150095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Steele CB, Rose JM, Chovnick G, Townsend MJS, Stockmyer MCK, Fonseka MJ, Richardson LC (2015) Use of evidence-based practices and resources among comprehensive cancer control programs. J Public Health Manag Pract 21(5):441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Townsend JS, Richardson LC, Steele CB, White DE (2009) Evidence-based interventions and screening recommendations for colorectal cancer in comprehensive cancer control plans: a content analysis. Prev Chronic Dis 6(4):A127

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Townsend JS, Steele CB, Hayes N, Bhatt A, Moore AR (2017) Human papillomavirus vaccine as an anticancer vaccine: collaborative efforts to promote human papillomavirus vaccine in the national comprehensive cancer control program. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 26(3):200–206. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Given LS, Hohman K, La Porta M, Belle-Isle L, Rochester P (2010) Comprehensive cancer control in the United States: progress and opportunity. Cancer Causes Control 21(12):1965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9670-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Given LS, Hohman K, Graaf L, Rochester P, Belle-Isle L (2010) From planning to implementation to outcomes: comprehensive cancer control implementation building blocks. Cancer Causes Control 21(12):1987–1994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Katz J, Wandersman A (2016) Technical assistance to enhance prevention capacity: a research synthesis of the evidence base. Prev Sci 17(4):417–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0636-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Leeman J, Calancie L, Hartman MA, Escoffery CT, Herrmann AK, Tague LE, Moore AA, Wilson KM, Schreiner M, Samuel-Hodge C (2015) What strategies are used to build practitioners’ capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review. Implement Sci 10(1):80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cranley LA, Cummings GG, Profetto-McGrath J, Toth F, Estabrooks CA (2017) Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review. BMJ Open 7(8):e014384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rochester P, Adams E, Porterfield DS, Holden D, McAleer K, Steele CB (2011) Cancer Plan Index: a measure for assessing the quality of cancer plans. J Public Health Manag Pract 17(6):E12–E17. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e318215a603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was funded by NIH (Grant No. 5U54CA155496-05S1).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Moreland-Russell.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official positions of the National Cancer Institute or National Institutes of Health.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 47 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moreland-Russell, S., Adsul, P., Nasir, S. et al. Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control. Cancer Causes Control 29, 1221–1230 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-018-1108-y

Download citation


  • Cancer
  • Dissemination
  • Implementation
  • Evaluation
  • Partnerships
  • Technical assistance