What makes national cancer plans work in practice? Insights from a new UICC report

National cancer control plans (NCCPs) are widely used by countries to guide cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care. These plans, however, must be costed and financed to ensure that planned actions translate into measurable progress on the ground. 

Encouragingly, many governments in recent years have developed comprehensive strategies to respond to their country’s cancer burden. The attention now must shift to how they are delivered in practice.

Indeed, country experiences show that outcomes are shaped not only by the content of a plan, but by how it is implemented over time. Governance arrangements, financing mechanisms, partnerships, and accountability processes all play a role in supporting sustained delivery.

A new UICC report, From strategy to action: assessing approaches and models to the design and implementation of national cancer control plans, looks at countries that have successfully implemented NCCPs, and examining the factors that influence delivery across different policy and health system contexts.

“UICC’s report on implementing national cancer control plans highlights what can be learned from countries that have had NCCPs in place for ten years or more, including successive plans, and considers which approaches have supported implementation in practice and which challenges have emerged over time.”
– Dr Sonali Johnson, Head of Knowledge, Advocacy, and Policy, UICC

The analysis in the report uses a mixed‑methods approach that combines global data with country‑level insights. This includes a review of policy documents and published literature, analysis of data from the second global review of NCCPs, and interviews with individuals directly responsible for implementing national cancer plans.

Nine countries were selected based on income level, regional diversity, availability of successive NCCPs. Other criteria include civil society engagement, cancer registry data, and monitoring frameworks. Interviews were conducted with national‑level actors involved in cancer plan delivery between June and August 2025.

Across different political and health system settings, the report identifies a number of factors that are commonly associated with implementation. These include an understanding of how health services are organised, governed, and financed in each country: whether responsibilities for cancer control sit mainly at national level or are shared with regional or local authorities; how decisions are made and implemented across ministries, agencies or arms‑length bodies; and how health services are financed, for example through tax‑funded systems, social or national health insurance, or mixed public–private models.

Aligning national cancer control plans with these existing structures supports more feasible and coordinated implementation. Collaboration across government, civil society, clinicians, researchers and people with lived experience is also important, helping to coordinate action and clarify shared responsibility for implementation.

The findings highlight the role of prioritisation over time. Countries that sequence implementation and focus resources on selected actions, rather than attempting to deliver all components of a comprehensive plan simultaneously, report greater feasibility in implementation. Governance and stewardship arrangements, including designated coordinating bodies and monitoring frameworks, contribute by clarifying roles, supporting coordination, and enabling progress to be tracked.

Financing is identified as a key factor influencing implementation. Where NCCPs are linked to budget processes and used to guide resource allocation across the cancer care continuum, they provide a clearer basis for delivery. In contrast, uncertainty around funding or a lack of alignment between plans and financing arrangements can limit implementation, even where strategic objectives are well defined.

The report also describes challenges encountered across countries. These include unclear or insufficient financing, fragmented responsibilities – particularly in decentralised systems – and difficulties in operationalising commitments related to equity and patient‑centred care. In addition, many countries report challenges in attributing changes in outcomes directly to NCCPs, which can limit learning and accountability.

“The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer is pleased to have contributed to this review alongside UICC and international partners, advancing shared insights on the effective implementation of national cancer control plans at a pivotal time for cancer control globally.”
– Andrea Reed, Vice‑President, Strategic Partnerships, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC).

As more countries focus on strengthening implementation, the report provides practical insights for cancer planners, policymakers and advocates working to improve delivery. By complementing global reviews with perspectives from those responsible for implementing NCCPs, the analysis adds to the evidence base on how national cancer strategies are carried out in practice.

Access the report