Cancer Disparities Research Partnership Program Process

1
Cancer Disparities Research Partnership
ProgramProcess Outcome Evaluation
2
Purpose of Evaluation

• Measure relevance, effectiveness, and impact of
  CDRP Program in a consistent fashion
• Evaluation findings to identify Program
  attributes to be applied to other settings
• Meaningful annual reports for stakeholders within
  and outside the NCI

3
Type of Program Evaluation

• 3-year evaluation
• Process components
• Is program being implemented as planned
• Is targeted audience being reached
• Outcome components
• Were short-term and intermediate objectives
  achieved

4
Evaluation Design Focus of Key Questions

• Improvement and conduct of radiation oncology
  clinical research in community-based health care
  institutions serving large populations
  experiencing health disparities
• Clinical trial participation by target
  populations
• Influence of partnerships between awardee
  institutions and academic research centers
• Influence of TELESYNERGY
• Influence of Patient Navigation

5
CDRP Program Conceptual Framework

6
Target Populationsfor Evaluation Data Collection

• Cancer patients from targeted populations
  experiencing cancer health disparities
• Principal Investigators, participating radiation
  oncologists, and awardee institution staff
• Patient Navigators

7
Data Sources

• Archival Data
• CDRP Database
• Program-related written documents
• PI meeting minutes, organizational records and
  charts
• Historical data on local cancer incidence,
  prevalence, mortality
• Baseline data on clinical trials and research
  activities at participating sites

• New Data
• In-depth structured interviews with PIs and
  partners
• Patient focus groups
• Group interviews with Patient Navigators and
  Navigator support staff
• Surveys on issues related to recruitment to
  clinical trials

8
Comparison Group

• 6 similar community-based radiation oncology
  facilities
• Comparison sites will be chosen based on same
  criteria as stated in RFA
• Conduct brief survey about independent and
  collaborative clinical research capabilities and
  current participation in radiation oncology
  clinical trials

9
Data Analysis

• Each program component will be analyzed
• Clinical trials
• Partnerships between awardee and academic partner
• TELESYNERGY
• Patient Navigation
• Sources of information will be combined to
  analyze overall Program and linkages
  between/among components.

10
Data Analysis (continued)

• Quantitative
• Descriptive statistics
• Complex analyses and causal modeling
• Resource cost-allocation analysis
• QualitativeThematic Analysis
• Intended and unintended successes
• Failures
• Critical incidents
• Lessons learned
• Recommendations for future programs

11
Evaluation Advisory Committee

• Norman Coleman, M.D. NCI/DCTD/RRP
• Larry Solomon, Ph.D.NCI/OSPA
• Paul Johnson, Ph.D.NICHD/OSPAC

• Ted Trimble, M.D.NCI/DCTD/CTEP
• Martin Ojong-Ntui, M.D.Chief, Radiation
  Oncology, GWU Cancer Center
• Frank Govern, Ph.D. NCI/DCTD/RRP

12
Evaluation Advisory CommitteeRoles and
Responsibilities

• Provide advice on programmatic needs and types of
  information RRP needs
• Provide guidance to ensure validity of evaluation
  design, approach, and data analysis
• Data Quality Subcommittee
• Review data collection methods and data analyses
  for accuracy, biases, interpretations, and
  conclusions
• Make recommendations for maintenance and/or
  improvement of data management and data quality
  assurance

13
Products of Evaluation Reports

• Annual process/progress reports
• Program implementation, accomplishments, and
  progress to date
• Needed midcourse changes to meet objectives.
• Final outcome report
• Evidence about Programs attainment of goals and
  expected outcomes.
• Summarize plausible mechanisms of change
• Delineate temporal sequences between activities
  and effects

14
Evaluation Timeline