Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention

(AHD Trial)

Not yet recruiting at 2 trial locations

Overseen By Mary Adams

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Washington University School of Medicine

Disqualifiers: Under 18 years old

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

What You Need to Know Before You Apply

What is the purpose of this trial?

This trial aims to enhance cancer prevention efforts by examining how academic health departments can more effectively implement evidence-based programs and policies. Participants in the implementation arm will receive guided support to strengthen their partnerships, while those in the control arm will access existing resources without additional assistance. This study is ideal for local health department workers or academic employees already engaged in cancer prevention programs through partnerships in the U.S.

As an unphased trial, this study provides a unique opportunity to contribute to the advancement of cancer prevention strategies.

Will I have to stop taking my current medications?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What prior data suggests that this method is safe for cancer prevention?

Research shows that this study's treatment uses existing resources and guided support to help prevent cancer. Although specific safety data for this method is unavailable, the trial is marked as "Not Applicable" for phase. This designation indicates a focus on support methods rather than testing a new drug or treatment, suggesting a low-risk profile.

The main aim is to enhance partnerships between academic health departments in cancer prevention. The study does not involve new medications or invasive procedures, making it generally safer. Participants will receive help and guidance to better utilize current resources, which is typically safe and well-tolerated. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Why are researchers excited about this trial?

Researchers are excited about this trial because it explores how guided facilitation might enhance cancer prevention efforts. Unlike standard practices that rely on individuals navigating resources on their own, the trial tests whether personalized support can improve partnerships and outcomes. By providing tailored guidance, the trial aims to uncover whether this hands-on approach can more effectively connect people to crucial cancer prevention resources, potentially leading to better health results.

What evidence suggests that this trial's treatments could be effective for cancer prevention?

This trial will compare two approaches to resource facilitation for cancer prevention. The implementation arm will receive tailored, guided support to enhance their AHD partnerships. Research has shown that collaboration among health departments improves the implementation of cancer prevention programs. One study found that these partnerships help apply proven cancer prevention methods. By supporting these collaborations, more communities can access effective prevention strategies. Another report noted that these partnerships are especially beneficial in rural areas, where resources might be limited. This approach ensures that effective cancer prevention programs reach more people and work better for them. Meanwhile, the control arm will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community but will not receive new resources or guided facilitation. ^{2 6 7 8 9}

Who Is on the Research Team?

Stephanie Mazzucca-Ragan

Principal Investigator

Washington University School of Medicine

Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?

This clinical trial is open to participants involved in academic health department partnerships focused on cancer prevention and control. Specific eligibility criteria are not detailed, suggesting a broad inclusion for those engaged in such collaborations.

Inclusion Criteria

Employees in academic settings currently partnering with local health departments. These partnerships could be located anywhere within the United States.

Local health department practitioners who are involved in the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs within their communities and are engaged in an academic-health department partnership

Exclusion Criteria

I am under 18 years old.

Timeline for a Trial Participant

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Implementation

Partnerships are randomized to receive either tailored strategies or existing resources to improve AHD partnerships

2 years

Ongoing collaboration and evaluation

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for changes in AHD partnerships and the impact on EBPP adoption

2 years post baseline

What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?

Interventions

• Existing resources
• Resources and guided facilitation

Trial Overview The study aims to evaluate how existing resources and guided facilitation within academic-local public health department partnerships can help implement evidence-based programs and policies related to cancer.

How Is the Trial Designed?

Group I: Implementation Arm Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

The implementation arm will receive tailored, guided support to improve their AHD partnerships.

Group II: Control Arm Active Control 1 Intervention

The control arm will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community but will not receive new resources or guided facilitation.

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Washington University School of Medicine

Lead Sponsor

Trials

2,027

Recruited

2,353,000+

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Collaborator

Trials

14,080

Recruited

41,180,000+

Published Research Related to This Trial

A study involving 14 clinicians revealed that motivations for reporting serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions included scientific curiosity and public health concerns, but feedback from pharmaceutical manufacturers was predominantly negative.

The research highlights the need for improved pharmacovigilance mechanisms, such as big data and registries, to enhance the reporting and documentation of adverse drug events, addressing barriers like complacency and indifference among clinicians.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Caveat Medicus: Clinician experiences in publishing reports of serious oncology-associated adverse drug reactions. Bennett, CL., Schooley, B., Taylor, MA., et al.[2020]

A systematic review of 23 randomized trials found that cancer patient decision aids significantly improve patient participation in decision making and lead to higher-quality decisions regarding treatment options.

Effective strategies to enhance shared decision making include training clinicians, using question prompt sheets, and providing decision coaching, which can help address patients' knowledge gaps and unrealistic expectations.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. Stacey, D., Samant, R., Bennett, C.[2022]

A new tool for clinicians in inpatient oncology units has been developed to prevent adverse events and enhance patient safety, focusing specifically on cancer patients.

The tool includes a catalog of adverse events and a risk map, which helps healthcare providers implement best practices in their daily activities to improve clinical safety.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Improving patient safety in the inpatient setting through risk assessment and mitigation. Reche Navarro, MN.[2016]

A new screening tool was developed to identify adverse events (AEs) in cancer care, consisting of 76 specific triggers that can help detect potential safety issues during treatment.

This tool, which categorizes triggers related to general care, vital signs, medications, and laboratory tests, has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care in oncology, although further testing is needed to validate its effectiveness.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records. Lipitz-Snyderman, A., Weingart, SN., Anderson, C., et al.[2021]

A survey of 727 stakeholders in cancer clinical research revealed that 93% believe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse events would enhance understanding of patient experiences during treatment.

The majority of respondents (88%) felt that using the PRO-CTCAE would improve the quality and efficiency of symptom data collection, indicating strong support for its implementation in clinical trials to inform treatment decisions.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Bruner, DW., Hanisch, LJ., Reeve, BB., et al.[2022]

The North Central Cancer Treatment Group developed a real-time toxicity reporting system to enhance the monitoring of severe side effects in NCI-sponsored clinical trials, aiming to improve patient safety.

This system has been effective in monitoring phase II and III trials, such as the N9741 study on advanced colorectal cancer, allowing for timely modifications to ongoing clinical trials based on reported adverse events.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program. Goldberg, RM., Sargent, DJ., Morton, RF., et al.[2016]

The iPEHOC intervention, which integrates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care, resulted in a significant reduction in emergency department visits among patients compared to controls, indicating potential benefits in managing cancer-related distress.

Patients exposed to the intervention showed lower rates of palliative care and psychosocial oncology visits, as well as fewer prescriptions for antidepressants, suggesting that PROs may help streamline care, although there was an increase in opioid prescriptions that warrants further investigation.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in "real-world" oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization. Howell, D., Li, M., Sutradhar, R., et al.[2021]

Citations

1. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10547626/

Barriers, facilitators, and priority needs related to cancer ... The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers, facilitators, and priority needs related to cancer prevention, control, and research ...

2. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11852556/

Improving cancer prevention and control through ... To understand the effects of AHD partnership strengthening activities, we will measure the adoption of cancer-related EBPPs (primary outcome) ...

3. cdc.gov cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2022/21_0450.htm

Facilitators of Multisector Collaboration for Delivering ... This report highlights rural agency perspectives on multisector collaboration and identifies facilitators unique to rural interagency collaboration.

4. ascopubs.org ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/GO.23.00439

Overcoming Barriers to Cancer Control in Low- and Middle ... This analytical review explores contemporary evidence on barriers undermining cancer control efforts in resource-constrained LMIC settings.

5. bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-019-4326-4

Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention ... To assess the effectiveness of incorporating cancer screening and prevention CDS into primary care, we updated a cardiovascular risk management ...

6. withpower.com withpower.com/trial/phase-malignancies-3-2025-200aa

Resource Facilitation for Cancer Prevention (AHD Trial) The research articles focus on improving patient safety and monitoring adverse events in cancer treatment, but they do not provide specific safety data for ...

7. cancer.org cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/cancer-prevention-and-early-detection-facts-and-figures/2025-cped-files/cped-cff-2025-2026.pdf

Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Facts & Figures ... This publication summarizes current scientific information about cancer. Except when specified, it does not represent the official policy of the ...

8. acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21788

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An ... Those systematic reviews indicated that patient navigation was cost-effective and potentially cost saving when increasing screening completion ...

9. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11520578/

Facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported ... This study integrates and identifies specific facilitators and barriers to PRO implementation in oncology clinical practice settings based on ...