ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Success Rates for the Objectives of US State Cancer Control Plans: A First Look.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The inclusion of tribes and American Indian and Alaska Native People in State comprehensive cancer control plans.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- How did states in the United States adapt their cancer control plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?Public health challenges · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA well-designed cancer control plan is an important tool for a nation, state, or community to address the burden of cancer. Furthermore, it provides the opportunity to devise and implement measurable objectives. However, there has been little to no assessment of the success rates of such objectives.
methodsI compared the success rate of objectives between US states' current plan and most recent past plan to determine the proportion of success in the United States overall. I also tested possible reasons for low success rates.
resultsThe mean success rate was 20% for stringent successes (only exact matches between plans) and 28% for loose successes (exact and similar matches between plans). The magnitude of change in percentage between the baseline and target for loose objectives significantly predicted success (P = .0347). Higher change resulted in lower success. However, neither the number of objectives nor the level of overlap significantly predicted success rate. Nor was population size, region, or rural-urban status significantly related to success rate. The most successful states had high proportions of objectives that were measurable and a high number of overlapping objectives.
conclusionI found that objective success rates were low for cancer control plans. To improve success rates, I suggest that future cancer control plans ensure each objective has a measurable baseline and realistically attainable target.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.