AzTrials
AzTrials

CancerAHDNCT06605196

Improving Cancer Prevention and Control Through Academic-local Public Health Department Partnerships

A study testing Resources and guided facilitation and Existing resources in people with Cancer, run by Washington University School of Medicine.

Withdrawn

Withdrawn. The study stopped before anyone enrolled.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to understand how to leverage structures and processes of academic health department (AHD) partnerships to facilitate implementation of cancer related evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Cancer
What is being tested?
Resources and guided facilitation and Existing resources
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
0 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
30 Sep 2026to 30 Nov 2028
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

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

Who cannot join

  • Individuals under the age of 18 years old.

About this study

The purpose of this study is to understand how to leverage structures and processes of academic health department (AHD) partnerships to facilitate implementation of cancer related evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs).

Read the detailed description

The investigators will conduct a group-randomized study (total N=28 AHD partnerships) to evaluate the effect of strategies to increase implementation of cancer control and prevention EBPPs by supporting AHD partnerships. Partnerships will be randomized 1:1 to either an active implementation arm in which they will receive tailored strategies based on prior knowledge of successful partnerships or to an existing set of resources for AHD partnerships. A mixed methods approach will be used to evaluate changes in AHD partnerships and understand how contextual factors may have impacted the AHD partnership's ability to support EBPP adoption.

Conditions
Cancer
Being tested
Resources and guided facilitation, Existing resources
Keywords
Improving cancer prevention and control, academic-local public health department partnerships
Medical subject headings
Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Resources and guided facilitationBehavioural

    Participants in the intervention arm will participate in a planning period at the beginning of the intervention period to establish the goals for the partnership. The investigators will use the prioritized list of AHD partnership features developed in prior research to guide the initial planning period and then assist the partnership members to plan to implement the corresponding strategies focused on their areas of interest (e.g., developing collaborative projects, hiring faculty, staff, or students to conduct data analysis). The investigators will use telephone, email communication, and video conferencing to communicate with AHD partnerships, regularly assess progress towards goals, and adjust goals and strategies based on the progress. One additional in person visit to each AHD partnership in the intervention arm will be made in year 2 of implementation to review goals and progress and provide additional guidance and tailored support as needed.

  • Existing resourcesBehavioural

    Individuals will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community.

Study groups in NCT06605196
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Implementation ArmExperimentalThe implementation arm will receive tailored, guided support to improve their AHD partnerships.
Receives: Behavioral: Resources and guided facilitation
Control ArmActive comparatorThe control arm will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community but will not receive new resources or guided facilitation.
Receives: Behavioral: Existing resources

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Evidence-Based Interventions

    Participants will see 5 questions about interventions related to specific public health program areas. They will be asked if their agency or institution has delivered those interventions within the last year. Possible score of 0 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  2. Academic Health Department Evidence-Based Interventions

    Participants will see 5 questions about interventions related to specific public health program areas. They will be asked if their academic health department has delivered those interventions within the last year. Possible score of 0 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

Secondary outcomes (20)

  1. Organizational Collaboration - Aligning strategy

    Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership...

    1. Work together to identify unmet needs in the community
    2. Work together to decide how to fill gaps in services and programs
    3. Act toward a common goal
    4. Are often in competition with one another (item reversed scored)
    5. Have trouble communicating (item reversed scored)

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  2. Organizational Collaboration - Coordinating Current Work

    Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership...

    1. Get a lot accomplished by working together
    2. Have trusting relationships
    3. Have access to resources that support collaboration between our organizations (e.g., expertise, facilities, funding)
    4. Keep each other up to date about the issues we work on
    5. Share information that helps public health practice work better

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  3. Joint Decision Making

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership.

    1. Our partner organization(s) highly value the opinions of other organizations, including our own
    2. Within our partnership, we brainstorm together to find solutions to address problems facing the collaboration
    3. We work through differences to arrive at win-win solutions

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  4. Joint Operation

    Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall operation score will be calculated by taking the average of the 2 characteristics. Higher scores indicate stronger partnerships.

    Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership...

    1. Have clearly defined roles and responsibilities
    2. Coordinate tasks well

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  5. Reduced Autonomy

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Lower scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership.

    1. This partnership hinders our organization from meeting its own missions
    2. This partnership reduces our organization's independence
    3. This partnership brings about conflicting expectations

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  6. Resource Sharing

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership.

    1. Within the partnership, we combine resources (e.g., financial, personnel, physical spaces)
    2. Within the partnership, we share information
    3. Within the partnership, we appreciate each other's contributions

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  7. Perceived Collaboration Outcomes

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Our academic local health department partnership…

    1. increases mutual respect and trust between the organizations.
    2. fosters a shared understanding of the public health needs in our community and the effective ways to address these needs.
    3. increases the number of connections between individuals in each organization or with other organizations.
    4. fosters equal influence and power in decision-making among partners
    5. improves the health of our community.
    6. improves practice-informed teaching.
    7. improves research-informed practice.
    8. improves students' application of theory to practice.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  8. Awareness of Evidence-Based Decision Making Culture Supportive of Evidence-Based Decision Making

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of opportunities to learn about and apply evidence-based decision making on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

    1. I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices.
    2. My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making
    3. My agency offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based decision-making

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  9. Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of opportunities to learn about and apply evidence-based decision making on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

    1. Top leadership in my agency encourages use of evidence-based decision-making

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  10. Resource Availability

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of resource availability in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

    1. Informational resources are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision-making
    2. My agency engages health organizations in a network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision-making
    3. Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision-making

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  11. Evaluation Capacity

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of evaluation capacity in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

    1. My agency plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation.
    2. My agency uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions.
    3. My agency distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  12. Individual Skills

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their individual public health skills on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 6 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0). Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement.

    1. I am knowledgeable about evidence-based public health processes.
    2. I have the skills I need to adapt evidence-based interventions from one population to another.
    3. I have the ability to lead efforts in evidence-based public health in my organization.
    4. I feel competent to manage change within my organization.
    5. I have the skills to effectively communicate information on evidence-based interventions to leaders in my organization.
    6. I have the skills to effectively communicate information on evidence-based interventions to decision make

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  13. Organizational Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making/Leadership

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of leadership in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 7 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0). Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    1. Has developed a plan to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    2. Has removed obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    3. Recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    4. Encourages planning for sustainability of programs.
    5. Perseveres through the ups and downs of implementing evidence-based interventions.
    6. Supports employees \'efforts to use evidence-based interventions.
    7. Reacts to critical issues regarding the implementation of evidence-based interventions by openly and effectively addressing the problem

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  14. Individual Skills for Health Equity

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of health equity within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement.

    1. I can describe how my work advances health equity.
    2. I can describe the causes of health inequities.
    3. I can describe health disparities among the populations in the communities I serve.
    4. I can identify ways to use evidence-based decision making to advance health equity.
    5. I can identify policies that will affect the social determinants of health and improve equity.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  15. Leadership

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of leadership in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 7 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0).

    Leadership in my agency....

    1. Has developed a plan to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    2. Has removed obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    3. Recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of evidence-based interventions.
    4. Encourages planning for sustainability of programs.
    5. Perseveres through the ups and downs of implementing evidence-based interventions.
    6. Supports employees\' efforts to use evidence-based interventions.
    7. Reacts to critical issues regarding the implementation of evidence-based interventions by openly and effectively addressing the problem.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  16. Organizational Climate and Culture

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of organizational climate and culture within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores mean a better outcome.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  17. Organizational Characteristics Related to Health Equity

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of organizational climate and culture within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

    1. My agency adapts approaches to populations experiencing disparities
    2. My agency allows employees to dedicate time for addressing health equity (HE)
    3. Programs and policies in my agency are designed to improve HE
    4. My agency has systems in place to track our progress in addressing HE
    5. HE is a core value within my agency
    6. My agency is intentional about hiring staff members who represent communities experiencing inequities
    7. Leaders in my agency prioritize HE when implementing programs and policies
    8. Leaders in my agency place a high value on addressing HE
    9. HE is explicitly stated as a shared priority in collaborations w/ internal agency partners

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  18. Environmental Support

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall environmental support score will be calculated by taking the average of the 3 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome.

    For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency.

    1. My agency has leadership support from outside of the agency (e.g., support from the governor or other elected officials)
    2. My agency and its work have strong public support (e.g., support from individuals in the community)
    3. My agency collaborates with sectors outside of health (e.g., business, parks and recreation programs, architecture).

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  19. Funding Stability

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall funding stability score will be calculated by taking the average of the 5 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome.

    For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency.

    1. My agency's work exists in a supportive state economic climate.
    2. My agency implements policies to help ensure sustained funding.
    3. My agency is funded through a variety of sources.
    4. My agency has a combination of stable and flexible funding.
    5. My agency has sustained funding.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

  20. Strategic Planning

    Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall strategic planning score will be calculated by taking the average of the 3 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome.

    For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency.

    1. My agency plans for future resource needs.
    2. My agency has a long-term financial plan.
    3. My agency has a sustainability plan.

    Measured: Baseline, 2 years post baseline

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Sep 2024
  2. Study start30 Sep 2026 (estimated)
  3. Primary completion30 Sep 2028 (estimated)
  4. Study completion30 Nov 2028 (estimated)

Why it stopped: Study not going forward.

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
0 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06605196
Sponsor's protocol ID
R37CA262011
Other IDs
R37CA262011
Acronym
AHD
Status last verified
Nov 2026
First submitted
6 Dec 2023
Last updated
6 Nov 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Plan to share all IPD that underlie results in a publication.

Publications

  • Mazzucca-Ragan S, Allen P, Amos K, Barker AR, Brewer M, Erwin PC, Gannon J, Gao F, Jacob RR, Lengnick-Hall R, Brownson RC. Improving cancer prevention and control through implementing academic-local public health department partnerships - protocol for a cluster-randomized implementation trial using a positive deviance approach. Implement Sci Commun. 2025 Feb 24;6(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s43058-025-00706-z.

    PubMed 39994666

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Resources and guided facilitation and Existing resources in people with Cancer, run by Washington University School of Medicine.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Evidence-Based Interventions (time frame: Baseline, 2 years post baseline). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06605196, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Nov 2026.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in