Application of implementation science methods and theories for cancer control planning in low-income and middle-income countries

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Implementation science (IS) is increasingly recognised as vital in cancer control planning and integrating evidence-based interventions across the cancer care continuum. Contextual differences often cause variability in delivering optimised healthcare, which IS approaches could mitigate. While IS improves planning effectiveness, many programme and policy planners remain unaware of its benefits. To address this, we examined IS theories applied to national cancer control plans (NCCPs)/strategies across five domains: stakeholder engagement, situational analysis, capacity assessment, economic evaluation and impact assessment.

METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley framework to analyse NCCPs and strategies from 16 and 17 countries belonging to low and medium categories of Human Development Index (HDI), focusing on resource-constrained settings. We identified plans through the International Cancer Control Partnership portal, categorised them by WHO region and included only those available in English or French. We extracted data into a Microsoft Excel database and performed thematic analysis across five IS domains. Multiple IS experts, selected purposively based on their familiarity with resource-constrained settings, validated the findings, assessed policy relevance and helped develop a pathway for integrating IS into national cancer control planning. They reviewed structured questions in advance and provided feedback on analyses, practical utility, dissemination and simplifying IS application, which was used to refine the pathway and reach consensus.

RESULTS: While many NCCPs incorporated key IS elements such as stakeholder engagement, situational analysis and impact measurement, these often needed to be more explicit and consistently applied. None of the plans assessed health system capacity to determine readiness for implementing new interventions. Although most plans described stakeholder engagement, it was typically unstructured and incomplete. Four low HDI and nine medium HDI countries included costed plans, generally using an activity-based approach. All plans included impact measures (eg, key performance indicators), but five lacked mechanisms for engaging stakeholders or responsible entities to achieve the targets. These findings informed a proposed pathway to integrate IS principles into cancer control planning.

CONCLUSION: Integrating IS into national cancer control planning offers a structured framework for achieving equitable and feasible cancer control policies, particularly in resource-constrained settings, by enabling realistic goal setting and benchmarking against regional and global standards.