Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comprehensive Cancer Control Technical Assistance Year 02 Evaluation Summary Report
PI: Mandi Pratt-Chapman, MA
Cooperative Agreement #1U38DP004972-02
September 25, 2015
Acknowledgement: This work was supported by Cooperative Agreement #1U38DP004972-02 from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2
Introduction and Purpose In September 2013, the George Washington University (GW) Cancer Institute received a five-year
cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enhance
technical assistance (TA) efforts to National Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) Program
grantees and partners (hereafter referred to as the CCCTA project). Evaluation is a CDC priority
and an integral overarching component to the agreement, requiring a clear plan and annual reports.
This summary evaluation report is intended for use by stakeholders such as CCC programs,
coalitions, and partners in cancer control. The purpose of this summary is to provide a brief
overview of the GW Cancer Institute CCCTA activities and progress in Project Year 02 (October
2014 to September 2015), provide transparency and accountability, and create an opportunity for
dialogue and input to improve future project activities. Questions and feedback for the CCCTA
project or evaluation may be directed to [email protected].
Summary of Year 02 Activities During the second year of the CCCTA project, the GW Cancer Institute successfully completed the
following outputs in accordance with the five TA strategies delineated in the project’s CCCTA
Training and Communication Plan:
Strategy 1: Improved Mechanisms of Communication and Coordination
1. Maintained the TA Portal website (www.cancercontroltap.org), which centralizes cancer
control resources and information. Maintained the website’s searchable online resource
repository and events calendar.
2. Maintained the GW Cancer Institute Twitter account (@GWCancerInst) as a
streamlined CCC information dissemination channel for promoting patient-centered
care, cancer survivorship, navigation and technical assistance.
3. Disseminated 12 monthly TA roundup electronic newsletters, which inform subscribers
of new TA resources, events, news, CCC work, and funding opportunities.
4. Coordinated the redesign and launch of the Comprehensive Cancer Control National
Partners website.
Strategy 2: Web-based Professional Education and Training
5. Hosted 5 TA webinars.
6. Launched 3 free on-demand self-paced online training courses:
a. Executive Training on Navigation and Survivorship
b. Oncology Patient Navigator Training: The Fundamentals
c. Communication Training for Comprehensive Cancer Control Professionals 101:
Media Planning and Media Relations
Strategy 3: Development of Tools and Resources
7. Created and released 7 cancer awareness month social media toolkits, which provide
guidance on best practices and ready-to-post messages for Facebook and Twitter.
3
8. Created and disseminated 3 resource guides, designed to be both standalone and
supplementary to the online training courses:
a. Guide for Program Development
b. Guide for Patient Navigators
c. Media Planning and Media Relations Guide
9. Created and launched a Priority Alignment Tool to help CCC programs align state
cancer plans with national priorities.
10. Created and launched the first section of the Comp Cancer 101 Wiki, a living resource
on the nuts and bolts of CCC coalition work.
11. Created and began pilot testing the Cancer Patient Navigation Toolkit for CCC
Practitioners, to guide states in advancing the profession of patient navigation.
12. Created and launched a searchable Goal Bank of goals from state CCC plans.
13. Created and disseminated a CCC Media/Communication Plan Template.
Strategy 4: Support for Cancer and Chronic Disease Integration Efforts
14. Implemented 4 community roundtables in partnership with Area Health Education
Centers, to bring together diverse cancer and chronic disease stakeholders in Champlain
Valley (Vermont), Gulfcoast South (Florida), Northeast Kentucky, and Northeast South
Dakota.
Strategy 5: Enhanced Connections Across Stakeholders
15. Hosted 5 “Ask the Expert” small group collaborative-learning forums.
16. Established a Mentorship Program and recruited the first cohort of 3 mentor and
mentee pairs, focusing on evidence-based health communication.
17. Established a TA Peer Matching program, which is designed to connect CCC
professionals in need of help to peers volunteering assistance.
18. Provided 36 instances of one-on-one TA to CCC grantees and their partners. Examples
of in-person TA support include: a keynote presentation in Kentucky on patient
navigation at the Patient Centered Education and Research Institute, a presentation on
survivorship resources at the Indiana Cancer Consortium annual meeting, a presentation
on survivorship at the Connecticut Cancer Partnership annual meeting, and a two-day
workshop on survivorship for Washington State’s Cancer Control Program.
19. Convened quarterly steering committee meetings and recruited new members for term
two.
Evaluation Focus and Methodology The GW Cancer Institute engages in evaluation data collection, synthesis and interpretation for all
CCCTA activities on a regular rolling basis to inform ongoing TA direction and improvements. This
evaluation summary will present available (in some cases preliminary) data for TA provided in
CCCTA project Year 02, including the GW Cancer Institute’s TA portal website, Twitter, TA
roundup e-newsletters, webinars, online trainings, social media toolkits, community roundtables, Ask
the Expert forums, and TA Peer Matching. Data sources include: web metrics (e.g. Google
Analytics, click counts), event post-surveys, and pre- and post-tests from online training courses. We
4
also conducted an anonymous web-based survey of CCC program and coalition staff from April to
August 2015 (n=45), and called 11 randomly selected CCC programs throughout the year for
telephone interviews. Evaluation questions centered around end user reach, utilization, satisfaction,
and perceived usefulness and applicability of TA provided.
Evaluation Findings Feedback on the GW Cancer Institute’s TA has been generally positive. Comments from the annual
survey included: “I find many of your resources very well done and useful” and “Keep up the great
work! It is much appreciated!” We also received specific suggestions for improvement on various
resources that will be described and addressed in the respective sections below.
TA Portal Website
The GW Cancer Institute TA portal
website, which launched toward the end of
September 2014, has steadily grown in user
base throughout the year. The website
averaged 387 unique visitors per month
with a high of 699 users in July 2015. The
searchable resource repository contains
more than 517 resources and has been
searched 2184 and accessed 2595 times
through September 2015. The website’s
calendar has cross-promoted more than
104 events relevant to cancer control.
In the annual survey and phone interviews,
one user complimented the quality of
resources on the website, calling it “helpful” and “user-friendly.” Meanwhile, another felt that “the
website is a little daunting…I am pulled in so many directions.” Of the 51% (n=19) of annual survey
respondents who reported using the searchable online resource repository, 71% found it useful.
However, one user had difficulty, reporting that “the online resource repository is complicated. I
have never been able to search successfully.” We have taken steps to improve the usability of the
website by restructuring the menu to be more intuitive. We regularly add new resources to the
repository from other national cancer control organizations in addition to resources that we
produce. As the repository grows, the likelihood that searchers find what they hope will increase. We
will also consider adding a button that says something like “Can’t find what you’re looking for?
Contact us!” to be able to more directly meet individual needs for TA resources.
195 180 219
365 462
410 437 339
436
699
516
0100200300400500600700800
Fre
qu
en
cy
Month
Number of Unique TAP Website Users, by Month
5
The GW Cancer Institute’s Twitter account
has increased its number of followers from
133 to 497 since October 2014, with
geographically diverse followers from
Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Virginia and the United Kingdom.
As of early September 2015, it has put out
1242 tweets and is following 1,006 Twitter
accounts. The Klout score, which measures
degree of influence on a scale of 0 to 100,
ranked 44.1, which is 4 points above
average. The @GWCancerInst Klout score
is also approximately 19 points away from
users with Klout scores in the top 5% of all users, respectable for a relatively new account.
TA e-Newsletter
We have released a total of 12 monthly TA e-newsletters since October 2014, and are poised to
continue monthly dissemination for the duration of the project. As of September 2015, we had 649
subscribers, a 57% increase from baseline of 412 in June 2014. The average open rate was roughly
26%, which is reflective of industry standards. The e-newsletters promoted CCC program or
coalition successes from Alabama,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho,
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New
York, South Carolina and Virginia resulting
in roughly 80 instances of increased traffic
to their linked websites or project materials.
According to our annual survey, 85%
(n=34) of respondents used the newsletters,
and 82% of users found them useful.
Newsletter users reported forwarding them
to coalition members and pertinent staff,
applying to funding opportunities listed in
the newsletter or drawing content for their
own coalition newsletters.
133 183 194
224
288 303
371 404 418
454 497
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fre
qu
en
cy
Month
Number of Twitter Followers, by Month
540 548
557 564 570 584 589
597 604 615
644 649
500
550
600
650
700
# o
f Su
bsc
rib
ers
Month of Subscription
TA e-Newsletter Subscription Rates, by Month
6
Webinars
The following 5 TA webinars were implemented during CCCTA project Year 02:
Webinar Topic Date Attendance Archived Views
Tools for Cancer Plan Assessment, Development, and Monitoring
1/21/2015 81 3
Aligning State Cancer Plans with National Priorities 3/25/2015 46 4
Grants and Funding: Diversifying and Securing Resources for Cancer Control
6/17/2015 97 9
Tobacco Cessation Resources for Cancer Patients and Survivors: Current Landscape and Call to Action
7/20/2015 144 9
Tailoring Tobacco Cessation Interventions 9/1/2015 105 11
Total 473 36
Live webinar participation ranged from 46 to 144, for a total of 473 participants altogether. An
additional 36 participants viewed the webinars in archived form. Webinars were the most popular
TA resource among annual survey respondents: 86% had attended webinars, and 92% found them
useful. On average, 80% of event post-survey respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they
were confident in the learning objectives. There was agreement or strong agreement among
participants that “I was satisfied with the webinar” (91%) and “I will use what I learned to enhance
my CCC efforts” (86%). We received overwhelmingly positive qualitative feedback as well, such as:
“Thank you for your webinars – we love them!” “The webinar was excellent – chock full of useful
information” and “Very informative and well done!”
Participants also provided insights and suggestions for improving future webinars. We learned that
there is a wide range of skill levels among individual CCC practitioners and webinar information was
sometimes too basic for some while being too advanced for others. For example, for the same
webinar, one attendee said: “As a newbie – the information presented was a little more advanced
[than] I had anticipated,” while a CCC veteran felt that no new information was provided. We now
make it a practice to explicitly post the learning objectives during promotion to help clarify the
depth level and content of each webinar. Some webinars featured state CCC programs or coalitions
sharing real-life examples of principles in action. One respondent “especially appreciate[d] hearing
from other states [and] coalitions regarding what has worked for them,” while another felt that it
was hard to envision how ideas from webinars could work in her own organization. Multiple
participants were pleased that we provide slides for all webinars and we will continue to do so.
Online Trainings
The Executive Training on Navigation and Survivorship: Finding Your Patient Focus was launched in
December 2014. In the ten months from launch to September 9, 2015, 696 learners enrolled, and
106 completed the eight self-paced lessons. There are 550 learners currently in the process of
completing the course. Continuing Education (CE) credits were awarded to 77 participants who
claimed nursing credits (ONS) and 44 participants who claimed social workers credits (NASW).
Evaluation data from those who completed the general evaluation (n=72) indicates that the training
7
“enabled learners with the skills and resources needed to launch and sustain navigation and
survivorship services that improve care for people affected by cancer across the care continuum”
(97.2%). Data from the same respondents indicates that 98.6% strongly agree or agree that their
“current knowledge base was enhanced as a result of the module content within the Executive
Training.” Data from those that completed the first module on program planning (n=247) indicated
strong agreement or agreement that content “utilized good, practical examples to teach/illustrate its
major points” (84.2%) and “was communicated clearly and effectively” (91.5%). Confidence in the
learning objective on understanding the importance of effective program planning increased from
72.4% in the pretest to 93.9% upon completion. Qualitative feedback points to a few technical
issues that we will remedy on an ongoing basis (e.g. video issues, browser issues, audio), but
feedback on content was generally positive with comments such as “the content has been very
significant and important” and “Resources, especially fillable diagrams, are excellent.” Evaluation is
ongoing as additional learners complete the modules and data will be used to continuously improve
our training offerings.
The Oncology Patient Navigator Training: The Fundamentals was launched in May 2015. In the five
months from launch to September 9, 2015, 765 learners enrolled, 88 completed the 20 self-paced
lessons. There are 644 learners currently in the process of completing the course and 29 are enrolled
but have yet to start the course. There is currently no CE available for this course, but we are
applying for the ability to award credits for Certified Health Education Specialists (CHES).
Evaluation data from those who completed the course was overall very positive. For example, of
those who evaluated module seven (n=90) 96.7% strongly agree or agree that “the training content
provided [them] with the skills and resources to successfully navigate patients.” Learners also
strongly agreed or agreed that “the training content was useful and relevant to [their] professional
development” (96.7%) and learners “plan to implement new strategies/skills/information as a
patient navigator” (91.2%). Overall learners strongly agreed or agreed that the “content utilized
good, practical examples to teach/illustrate its major points” (95.6%) and that content “was
communicated clearly and effectively” (96.7%). Qualitative feedback was generally positive with
comments such as “The content allowed me to strategize a plan for my patients and the research
resources were helpful”, “I feel as though I gained a much better understanding of treatment
options,” “This was good beginning information which will help assisting patients with
appointments, and conducting outreach in communities” and “This was one of the most
informative modules so far as we could all practice cultural competency regularly.” Feedback also
pointed to some issues that we will address such as “videos not launching quickly, modules requiring
more time than stated” and learners also requested “more [knowledge] checkpoints.” Evaluation is
ongoing as additional learners complete the modules and data will be used to continuously improve
our training offerings.
The Communication Training for CCC Professionals: Media Planning and Media Relations launched on
August 10, 2015. In the month since launch to September 9, 2015, 108 learners enrolled, 13
completed the four self-paced lessons and 84 learners are currently in the process of completing the
8
course. 11 learners have enrolled but have yet to begin the course. There are currently no continuing
education (CE) credits available for this course. Evaluation data about confidence in ability from
those that completed lesson one (n=34) indicates that 91.2% strongly agree or agree in their ability
to “describe the role of communication in chronic disease and cancer prevention and control.” All
learners (100%) indicated they strongly agreed or agreed in their ability “to explain the importance of
health literacy and culturally appropriate messaging for communication strategies.” Evaluation data
from learners that completed module two (n=27) indicate 85.2% “plan to implement new
strategies/skills/information as a comprehensive cancer control professional.” Emerging qualitative
data have been positive and include feedback such as “This was an extremely informative resource
for learning how to strategically analyze the audience and translate the information plainly to each
group” and “The templates and information provided are extremely helpful for keeping track of not
only the ideology of our goals but most importantly the strategy for the end goal. I am looking
forward to the evidence based portion of the program.” Evaluation is ongoing as additional learners
complete the modules, and data will be used to continuously improve our training offerings.
Social Media Toolkits
The GW Cancer Institute launched 7 social media toolkits corresponding with cancer awareness
months: breast cancer (October 2014), lung cancer (November 2014), cervical cancer (January 2015),
World Cancer Day (February 2015), colorectal cancer (March 2015), prostate cancer (September
2015), and breast cancer (October 2015). The social media toolkits have been accessed over 305
times, and the Twitter and Facebook messages have been used by diverse cancer stakeholders
including CCC coalitions, health departments, individual clinicians, cancer centers, and non-profits.
Fifty-four percent (n=21) of annual survey respondents reported using the social media toolkits and
90% found them useful. Some CCC stakeholders were unable to use the toolkits because their
organization’s restricted social media use. Others were interested in using the toolkits but requested
earlier release dates to allow more time for preparation and necessary organizational approvals. In
response to these requests, we have started releasing social media toolkits 1-2 months in advance of
the corresponding awareness month.
Community Roundtables
The GW Cancer Institute partnered with Area Health Education Centers (AHECs) in 4 locations to
host community roundtables convening cancer and chronic disease prevention stakeholders to
develop an integrated effort addressing a prioritized topic area. The inaugural meeting for each
roundtable location took place this year:
Roundtable Location Topic Date Attendance
Northeast Kentucky AHEC Tobacco 4/30/2015 26
Champlain Valley AHEC
(Vermont)
Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (Interventions to Obesity-Related Cancer and Disease)
5/12/2015 25
Gulfcoast South AHEC (Florida) Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity
6/10/2015 27
9
Northeast South Dakota AHEC Access and Use of Health Services 7/28/2015 18
On average, 96% of post roundtable survey participants in Kentucky, 80% in Vermont, 90% in
Florida and 78% in South Dakota strongly agreed that they’d met their personal/professional goals
for participating in the event. Full evaluation results, including a preliminary professional social
network analysis are forthcoming and will be available in a separate report in October 2015.
Ask the Expert
We hosted 5 “Ask the Expert” collaborative-learning virtual discussion sessions:
Ask the Expert Topic Date Attendance
PSE Changes and the Affordable Care Act 10/21/2014 7
Conducting the Survivorship Care Plan Use Survey 12/10/2014 13
Engaging with Local Health Departments for Comprehensive Cancer
Control
5/12/2015 17
Communication and Media Planning for Comprehensive Cancer
Control: CDC Requirements and Expectations
6/25/2015 18
Understanding the Issues: How to Use Community Assessment,
Evidence, and Theory to Inform Your Cancer Control Approaches
9/14/2015 13
Total 68
During these events, a small group capped at roughly 15 participants per session has the opportunity
to interact and learn from topic experts and peers in the audience. Twenty-four percent (n=8) of
annual survey respondents reported attending an Ask the Expert discussion and 75% found them
useful. Post-event evaluation surveys indicate that 77% of Ask the Expert session participants
agreed or strongly agreed that they were confident in the learning objectives, 75% were satisfied with
the sessions, and 82% intended to use the information in their CCC efforts.
Participants expressed interest in “discussing problems/issues,” “more discussion on novel
approaches,” and “coalition work – what can we as CCC Programs encourage our partners to do.”
They enjoyed aspects of the Ask the Expert meetings such as “being able to hear from other
programs,” which was “extremely helpful,” and receiving consolidated lists of “amazing” resources
identified during the session. However, the interactive Ask the Expert format, which uses webcams
and enables the microphones of all participants, presented technical challenges for some of the
events. One respondent reported, “The audio was really bad. It kept coming in and out, and there
were large blocks of time where I couldn’t understand what the experts were saying.” At times, it
was also a challenge to encourage active participation and stimulate discussion. A couple participants
also suggested that we “have introductions at the start to know who all is on the phone, and to break
the ice for getting people speaking.” We have learned from each previous session and continue to
improve the format, including having multiple tech-checks with the experts prior to the event. We
have also hopefully gotten better at determining which topics and speakers lend themselves more to
this format instead of a traditional webinar.
10
TA Peer Matching Program
The GW Cancer Institute began recruiting experts for its Peer Matching Program in November
2014 and started to accept match requests in February 2015. We were able to provide connections
from informal matches/introduction requests, for example, identifying a motivational interviewing
expert for Kentucky Cancer Consortium and connecting Michigan’s CCC program expert in
colorectal cancer screening with Texas’s CCC program to provide leadership in the National
Association of Chronic Disease Directors. However, although the Peer Matching program was
developed in response to expressed interest in having the opportunity to help and learn from peers,
only 2 TA requests were ever requested through the formal matching mechanism. When asked
about reasons for low utilization in the annual survey, 52% (n=17) said they had not heard of the
matching program, 12% (n=4) said they did not need help or have questions for peers outside of
their own network and another 12% (n=4) did not understand how to request TA. We are in the
process of strategizing future potential outlets and changes for the matching program in
collaboration with other partners to address barriers to use.
Ongoing Needs Assessment According to our annual survey, participants expressed greatest need for TA support in the
following CCC programmatic areas: coalition leadership and operations (64%, n=28), monitoring
and evaluation (61%, n=27), membership engagement strategies (52%, n=23), and communications
planning (50%, n=22). Policy systems and environmental changes (71%, n=29), public health needs
of cancer survivors (66%, n=27) and primary prevention (56.1%, n=23) were the top topic areas for
TA support in the upcoming year. For future webinars, people were most interested in learning
about: evidence-based practices and interventions (n=75); survivorship (n=73); program evaluation
(n=71); patient navigation (n=65); health disparities/equity (n=60) and grants, funding and capacity
building (n=56).
According to qualitative feedback from our CCCTA evaluation surveys and telephone interviews,
CCC professionals identified numerous challenges and areas for capacity-building. The most
common theme to emerge was the challenge of sustaining an engaged and active coalition: how to
prevent stagnation, manage “bloated” membership lists, hold members accountable for work,
navigate conflict and encourage active member participation. People also commonly referenced
resource and funding constraints, and the difficulty of making a meaningful impact on a broad
mandate with limited paid staff. Another frequently-cited challenge was evaluation, including
measurement of coalition activities, engagement, and collective impact. All aspects of policy,
systems, and environmental change continue to be challenging as well for some respondents, from
identifying issues, to encouraging actions from community and coalition, to measuring impact.
Numerous other miscellaneous TA needs and resource gaps were mentioned, for example: evidence-
based strategies for interventions at survivorship and treatment phases of the continuum, leadership-
strengthening capacity-building, assistance in developing funding opportunities, multi-level program
evaluation report guidance and strategies for better engaging with primary care providers. Some
11
CCC professionals talked about juggling competing priorities and a broad scope of work, even
within cancer plans, which made it difficult to delve deeply and effectively carry out expectations.
Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement The GW Cancer Institute’s central challenge lay in providing useful and responsive TA that
addressed the needs of diverse CCC stakeholders operating under diverse contexts across the
country. As noted in the Webinars evaluation findings, CCC practitioners range from brand new to
veterans with years of experience, and our goal is to provide TA that is useful to everyone. Most of
our TA products and activities thus far have been generally geared towards the CCC state programs
and coalitions and may not always be useful for the tribal and Pacific Island Jurisdiction (PIJ)
programs and coalitions who operate in diversely unique and challenging contexts. While many CCC
professionals enjoy and even prefer web-based TA, our target PIJ end users often cannot attend our
live events due to time differences and may experience difficulty accessing our web-based resources
due to internet connectivity issues. Also, some of the TA topics and examples included in our
products may be irrelevant or not applicable in tribal and PIJ contexts. Our team does not have the
in-house expertise to produce culturally tailored TA for these programs but is interested in exploring
partnerships with external partners to adapt our existing TA and develop new TA to better meet the
needs of these important CCC stakeholders. Starting from Year 02 onward, we have reserved 2
spaces on the CCCTA project steering committee for a tribal and PIJ CCC representative to help
inform our work.
Next Steps During Year 03 the GW Cancer Institute will continue to maintain and build upon current TA
efforts and strive to solicit and adhere to the feedback received and needs identified. The GW
Cancer Institute’s TA website, repository, events calendar, and Twitter account will be maintained
and updated on an ongoing basis. We will work toward increasing the number of programs and
coalitions that use the GW Cancer Institute’s TA website by making it more user-friendly. We plan
to host 4 more webinars during Year 03 on high-interest topics indicated in ongoing needs
assessment. We will make efforts to be mindful of audience experience levels and communicate
more clearly about learning objectives for events. We can also consider polling participants upon
registration to get a general idea of current knowledge and skill level on subjects to deliver more
useful and impactful information. We will also continue to seek speakers from CCC programs and
coalitions with varied implementation ideas to provide relevant examples. We will continue to
review evaluation data for online training courses and address technical issues. We are also pursuing
CHES credits for all of our trainings. We are in the process of developing another online training
called Communication for Comprehensive Cancer Control Professionals 102: Making Health Communication
Campaigns Evidence-Based, along with an accompanying resource guide. An additional online training
on policy advocacy and PSE changes is also planned. Social media toolkits for awareness months
will be updated and relaunched during Year 03, and will continue to be released 1-2 months ahead
of time to allow CCC practitioners to prepare and gain necessary approvals for use. The second of
12
three annual meetings will take place during Year 03 for each of the 4 community roundtable
locations. The Ask the Expert forum’s interactive format was newly introduced this year, and 4
more are planned for this coming year. We will continue to hone technical aspects of these events
and test strategies to promote audience participation and interaction.
We are currently in the midst of developing other TA resources that are scheduled for completion
during Year 03. These include: a Policy, Systems and Environment (PSE) interactive web-based tool
that will help individuals and communities access information and resources to help address
inequities in cancer care access across the country and a Survivorship Report that will present a
national snapshot of the current state of cancer survivorship in the U.S. to guide CCC program
efforts. We also plan to continue pilot testing for the Patient Navigation PSE toolkit which was
designed to advance patient navigation as an integral part of the healthcare team.
The GW Cancer Institute is committed to supporting tribe and PIJ CCC programs and coalitions
and including them in our TA efforts. We have become more cognizant of the need for
downloadable and non-internet-dependent resources. We have also had preliminary conversations
with key experts and potential partners to identify opportunities for more culturally and contextually
appropriate TA in Year 03.
Ongoing evaluation feedback will be thoughtfully considered and incorporated in the development
of each of our new products and activities. The GW Cancer Institute will continue to collect web
metrics such as click counts and attendance numbers in order to assess CCCTA reach and gauge
most salient topics of interest to CCC grantees. We will continue to administer evaluation surveys
after each event as well as an annual stakeholder-wide survey next August. We will also continue
calling randomly selected CCC programs and coalitions in order to move beyond the network of
people we are already familiar with and hear from people we may not know yet. Additional
evaluation will take place for community roundtables and the Mentorship Program. Information
solicited from these metrics, surveys and other modes of data collection will be crucial in guiding
both the implementation and choice of TA topics for future activities to ensure we are responsive to
expressed needs.
Feedback and specific requests for technical assistance may be directed to [email protected].
