Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consensus Building to Inform Common Evaluation Metrics for the Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Common measures facilitate the standardization of assessment practices. These types of measures are needed to develop instruments that can be used to assess the overall effectiveness of the U54 Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) funding mechanism. Developing common measures requires a multi-phase process. Stakeholders used the nominal group technique, a consensus development process, and the Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) platform to identify evaluation constructs and measures of those constructs. Use of these instruments will ensure the implementation of standardized data elements, facilitate data integration, enhance the quality of evaluation reporting to the National Cancer Institute, foster comparative analyses across centers, and support the national assessment of the CPACHE program.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McIntyre J, Peral S, Dodd SJ, Behar-Horenstein LS, Madanat H, Shain A, DeJesus S, Laurila K, Robinett H, Holmes K, Aguila N, Marzan M, Spychala L, Barrios A, Rivers D, Loest H, Drennan M, Suiter S, Richey J, Brown T, Webb L, Hubbard K, Scarinci IC. Abstract D041: efforts to implement a participatory evaluation plan for comprehensive partnerships to advance cancer health equity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.DISP19-D041

  2. Straw R, Herrell J (2002) A framework for understanding and improving multisite evaluations. New Dir Eval 94:5–16

  3. Elder MM, Carter-Edwards L, Hurd TC, Rumala BB, Wallerstein N (2013) A logic model for communityengagement within the ctsa consortium: can we measure what we model? Acad Med 88(10):1430–1436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moser RP, Hesse BW, Shaikh AR, Courtney P, Morgan G, Augustson E, Kobrin S, Levin KY, Helba C, Garner D, Dunn M, Coa K (2011) Grid-enabled measures: using science 2.0 to standardize measures and share data. Am J Prev Med 40(5 Suppl 2):S134–S143

  5. Patel T, Rainwater J, Trochim WM, Elworth JT, Scholl L, Dave G, Members of the CTSA Evaluation Guidelines Working Group (2019) Opportunities for strengthening CTSA evaluation. J Clin Transl Res Sci 3(2/3):59–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.387

  6. Rubio DM, Blank AE, Dozier A, Hites L, Gilliam VA, Hunt J, Rainwater J, Trochim WM (2015) Developing common metrics for the clinical and translational science awards (CTSAs): lessons learned. Clin Transl Sci 8(5):451–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12296

  7. Sy A, Hayes T, Laurila K, Noboa C, Langwerden RJ, Andújar-Pérez DA, Stevenson L, Randolph Cunningham SM, Rollins L, Madanat H, Penn T, Mehravaran S (2020) Evaluating research centers in minority institutions: framework, metrics, best practices, and challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(22):8373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228373

  8. Blumenthal D, McGinnis JM (2015) Measuring vital signs: an IOM report on core metrics for health and health care progress. JAMA 313(19):1901–1902. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.4862

  9. Snibbe AC (2006) Drowning in data. Stanf Soc Innov Rev 39–45. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/drowning_in_data

  10. Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001):376–80. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.111.015065

  11. Grid Enabled Measures (GEM) (No date). https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/research/grid-enabled-measures-database

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank members of the CPACHE Evaluation Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Anthony Barrios; Hali Robinette, MPH; Jessica McIntyre, BA; Kevin Cassel, DrPH; Kimberly Harris, PhD; Kristi Holmes, PhD; Lecarde Webb, MPH; Leo Spychala, MPH; Mirza Rivera Lugo, MS, MT; Sherri De Jesus, PhD, MHA; Tanya Penn, MPH, CPH (in alphabetical order). The authors extend their gratitude to Isabel C. Scarinci, PhD, MPH, for her leadership during phase 1 of this endeavor. Finally, David Garner, Ashley Eure, and the Westat team developed the ballots for the consensus building process and prepared the results via GEM.

Finally, the authors extend their gratitude to the National Cancer Institute team for their continued support of this national collaboration. The authors express gratitude to the following NCI team members for their continued interest and engagement in the project: LeeAnn Bailey, M.B.B.S, Ph.D., M.S. (Chief, Integrated Networks Branch); H. Nelson Aguila, D.V.M. (Deputy Director); Emmanuel A. Taylor, M.Sc., Dr.P.H. (Program Director), and Richard P. Moser, Ph.D. (Training Director and Research Methods Coordinator in the Behavioral Research Program’s Office of the Associate Director).

Funding

This work received funding from the National Institutes of Health CPACHE: The Florida-California NCI U54 CaRE2 Center, University of Florida U54CA233444, University of Southern California U54CA233465, and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University U54CA233396; The Partnership for Native American Cancer Prevention, University of Arizona U54CA143924 and Northern Arizona University U54CA143925; Meharry Medical College (MMC), Tennessee State University (TSU); and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) Partners in Eliminating Cancer Disparities U54 U54CA163072.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Development and Organizational Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Linda S. Behar-Horenstein

  2. Department of Human Development and Organizational Studies, University of Florida, 7916 Monarch Ct, Delray Beach, FL, 33446, USA

    Linda S. Behar-Horenstein

  3. Department of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Sarah Suiter

  4. NOVA Research Company, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Frederick Snyder

  5. Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

    Kelly Laurila

Authors
  1. Linda S. Behar-Horenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Suiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frederick Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kelly Laurila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Linda S. Behar-Horenstein contributed to project administration (SIG co-lead), the conceptualization of the paper, methodology, curation of evaluation constructs and items, and development of tables and figures, and participated in the writing and review of the manuscript. Sarah Suiter contributed to project administration (SIG co-lead), conceptualization of the paper, and review and development of constructs and measures, and participated in the writing of the manuscript. Kelly Laurila contributed to project administration (SIG co-lead), the conceptualization of the paper, methodology, curation of evaluation constructs and items, and development of tables and figures, and participated in the writing and review of the manuscript. Frederick Snyder assisted with project administration, participated in review and development of constructs and measures, and participated in the writing and review of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda S. Behar-Horenstein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. We have presented an approach to developing common measures for the U54 CPACHE funding mechanism.

2. We used a consensus-based process to identify constructs and instruments agreed upon by multiple sites with multiple priorities and different foci.

3. We identified Research Education and Outreach specific evaluation constructs that will yield standardized measures for the U54 CPACHE centers.

Appendices

Appendix A. CPACHE Research Education SIG GEM Ballot Sample Items

Only one vote may be cast per CPACHE partnership. Please communicate with your partner institution(s) before submission to ensure only one vote is submitted on behalf of your program.

1. Partnership institutions (ISUPS and CC)__________________________________________

figure a

Appendix B. CPACHE Outreach SIG GEM Ballot Sample Items

Only one vote may be cast per CPACHE partnership. Please communicate with your partner institution(s) before submission to ensure only one vote is submitted on behalf of your program.

2. Partnership institutions (ISUPS and CC) ___________________________________________

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Behar-Horenstein, L.S., Suiter, S., Snyder, F. et al. Consensus Building to Inform Common Evaluation Metrics for the Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program. J Canc Educ 38, 231–239 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02103-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02103-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation