ReviewCancer causes & control : CCC2026
United States comprehensive cancer control plans: a national review.
Review in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2021, the United States (US) Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership conducted a review of US cancer control plans. Here we have summarized the methods used and the results of this review to better understand the plans' comprehensiveness, strengths, weaknesses, and inclusion of emerging cancer prevention and control topics.
methodsFor this review, the authors adapted a tool used in a global review of national cancer control plans. The review tool was piloted, modified, and programmed into a web survey software for reviewer data entry. We obtained and reviewed plans from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 6 US Pacific Island Jurisdictions and Puerto Rico, and 8 Tribes and Tribal organizations (N = 66).
resultsThis review highlighted many strengths (e.g., use of data) of US cancer control plans and some areas where more specific plan strategies and content are needed (e.g., resource needs). 59% of plans covered all six cancer control areas. Most addressed equitable access to services (83%), but few targeted specific groups like people with disabilities (12%). Nearly all used data for objectives (96%), and most defined implementation responsibilities (76%), though only 15% discussed financial resources or strategies.
conclusionCCC plans are data-informed documents developed with community input outlining jurisdictional priorities that help inform policies and are implemented through multisectoral coalitions. These plans offer adaptable strategies that address both cancer burden and shifting social, economic, and organizational factors. While plans are strong in areas like prevention and use of data, opportunities exist to better address financial planning, the needs of specific populations like older adults and people with disabilities, and emerging topics such as vaping. The review serves as a call to action for enhanced collaboration to address these gaps and accelerate efforts to reduce the burden of cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.