Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26182148›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2015

Comprehensive Cancer Control Partners' Use of and Attitudes About Evidence-Based Practices.

C Brooke Steele, John M Rose, Julie S Townsend, Jamila Fonseka, Lisa C Richardson, Gary Chovnick

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

C Brooke SteeleDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mail Stop F-76, Chamblee Building No. 107, 4th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30341. Email: BSteele1@cdc.gov.
John M RoseHealth and Analytics, Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington.
Julie S TownsendDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgi.
Jamila FonsekaDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgi.
Lisa C RichardsonDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgi.
Gary ChovnickHealth and Analytics, Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington.

Funding

PHS HHS 200-2008-27956-0015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNational Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) awardees are encouraged to work with partners (eg, nonprofit organizations) to develop and implement plans to reduce the cancer burden in their jurisdictions using evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, the extent of EBP use among awardees and their partners is not well understood.

methodsFrom March through July 2012, we conducted a web-based survey of program partners referred by NCCCP program directors who were involved in implementation of cancer control plans.

resultsApproximately 53% of referred partners (n = 83) completed surveys, 91.6% of whom represented organizations. Most partners reported involvement in helping to identify (80.5%), adapt (81.7%), implement (90.4%), and evaluate (81.9%) EBPs. The factors rated most frequently as very important when selecting EBPs were "consistent with our organization's mission" (89.2%) and "cost-effective" (81.9%). Although most respondents said that their organizations understood the importance of using EBPs (84.3%) and had adequate access to cancer registry data (74.7%), few reported having sufficient financial resources to develop new EBPs (7.9%). The most frequently mentioned benefit of using EBPs was that they are proven to work. Resource limitations and difficulty adapting EBPs for specific populations and settings were challenges.

conclusionsOur findings help indicate how NCCCP partners are involved in using EBPs and can guide ongoing efforts to encourage the use of EBPs for cancer control. The challenges of using EBPs that partners identified highlight the need to improve strategies to translate cancer prevention and control research into practice in real-world settings and for diverse populations.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Community NetworksCross-Sectional StudiesDiffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Facility AdministratorsHealth SurveysHumansInternetMicronesiaNeoplasmsOrganizations, NonprofitPreventive Health ServicesProfessional Competence

Identifiers

PMID26182148
PMCPMC4509093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.