title: Ecological analysis of the first generation of community clinical oncology programs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  An ecological framework is proposed for assessing factors important to consider in allocating funds to promote sound performance of interorganizational programs.
  
  
  METHODS
  This framework is used to examine the first generation of Community Clinical Oncology Programs (CCOPs) funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from 1983-1986 to coordinate clinical research activity at the local level. The research reported is based on secondary data collected for the Community Cancer Care Evaluation at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.
  
  
  METHODS
  A repeated measures design was used to analyze differences in the level and patterns of CCOP productivity, a measure of the number of patients enrolled on NCI-approved Phase III trials. The predictive dimensions include (1) measures of environmental inputs (population density, organizational dominance, professional support, NCI funding); (2) measures of organizational inputs (number of hospitals, number of staff, number of physicians, NCI experience, clinical research experience); and (3) structural measures (functional specialization, administrative concentration). Predicted relationships were assessed using general linear models procedures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data obtained from NCI files were supplemented by interviews with NCI personnel and published statistics.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Funding level, clinical research experience, and number of staff are the most important predictors of patient enrollment. Clinical research experience has a positive relationship with patient enrollment and a negative association with changes in enrollment. The reversal is explained by the influence of the CCOPs that had the greatest amount of clinical research experience at the beginning of the program.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The ecological approach provides a useful framework for understanding factors that should be considered in funding interorganizational programs and promoting their development. Most importantly, results suggest that a somewhat different approach is needed to initiate programs rather than to expand existing programs.
authors: School of Social Work, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-3550.
authors: J H
authors: JH
authors: Schopler
mesh_terms: D002985:Clinical Protocols / Q000592:standards; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D003153:Community Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards*; D004463:Ecology; D004526:Efficiency; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007373:Interinstitutional Relations; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards*; D017146:Models, Organizational; D009316:National Institutes of Health (U.S.); D015279:Organizational Culture; D009936:Organizational Innovation; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010343:Patient Admission / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011156:Population Density; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000600:supply & distribution; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000592:standards; D012930:Social Dominance; D012931:Social Environment; D013597:Systems Analysis; D014481:United States; D000078329:Workforce