Inventory and Assessment of NBCCEDP Interventions Evaluation November 1, 2007

1. Inventory and Assessment of NBCCEDP Interventions EvaluationNovember 1, 2007

2. Purpose of Study • Inventory NBCCEDP interventions used to recruit women for screening • Inventory interventions used for the professional development of program staff and healthcare providers • Create a database of these interventions

3. Purpose of Study • Assess the interventions for their application of evidence-based cancer prevention practices • Disseminate the findings to encourage effective, evidence-based interventions for recruiting women and the professional development of healthcare providers

4. Research Questions The inventory project will answer the following questions: • What is therange of recruitment and professional development activities conducted by NBCCEDP grantees? • What recruitment and professional development activities are perceived to be effective by NBCCEDP grantees? • What dissemination strategies for evidence-based interventions to increase cancer screening are effective for NBCCEDP grantees? • What factors influenced NBCCEDP adoption of interventions in general (e.g., intervention, organizational)? What factors influenced adoption of EBIs?  

5. Research Questions • What is the knowledge and use of evidence-based resources for increasing cancer screening by NBCCEDP grantees (i.e., Community Guide, RTIPS)? • To what extent do the recruitment and professional development activities match evidence-based interventions to increase breast and cervical cancer screening? • To what extent do NBCCEDP grantees implement process steps or core elements from evidence-based interventions for their recruitment and professional development activities? (intervention fidelity)

6. Inventory Project Progress • Development of Conceptual Models • Development of Interview Guides • Feedback from Advisory Committee on Guides in August • Calls/meetings with CDC/Program Services Branch staff and representative coordinators to discuss project promotion and the interview guides • Pilot-testing of the Interview Guides for Recruitment and Professional Development Interventions

7. Grant Timeline

8. Individual - Patient Reminders* - Educational Materials* - One-on-One Education/Counseling* Interpersonal - Group Education* - Social Network Community - Mass Media* Organizational - Cost Reduction* - Financial Incentives* - Access Enhancing* Multi-component - Multi-component Interventions* Categories: Recruitment Strategies *Strategy reviewed in the Community Guide to Preventive Services

9. Individual - Educational Materials - Conferences/Courses Interpersonal - Educational Outreach - Local Opinion Leaders Multi-component - Multi-component Interventions Organizational - Audit and Feedback* - Provider Reminders* - Financial Interventions* - Regulatory Interventions - Organizational Interventions Categories: Professional Development Strategies *Strategy reviewed in the Community Guide to Preventive Services

10. Project Methods • Study Design • Cross sectional data collection through telephone interviews • Population • Recruitment and professional development coordinators from all 68 NBCCEDP grantee programs

13. Instrument: Interview Guide Program Information (Section A) Use of EBIs List of Activities in Past Year Major Activities? “Top 5” (Section B) How learn about activity Major Activities Full Description (C-E) Other Activities Brief Description General Questions about Recruitment/ Professional Development (Section G) Factors in Choosing activity Sources of EBIs Evidence-based Cancer Prevention Knowledge and Practices (Section H)

14. Potential Areas of Research fromthe Inventory Project • Dissemination Research • Grantees will report on how they learned about programs and what EBIs they are using • Test strategies to spread knowledge about evidence-based public health interventions to achieve greater use and impact of EBIs • Evaluating Promising Program Strategies • Grantees may report “promising intervention strategies” that are intervention categories listed as having “insufficient evidence” or are not a recommended strategy in the Community Guide or the intervention literature • Collaboratively evaluate “promising strategies”