Patient navigation: State of the art or is it science?

First implemented in 1990, patient navigation interventions are emerging today as an approach to reduce cancer disparities. However, there is lack of consensus about how patient navigation is defined, what patient navigators do, and what their qualifications should be. Little is known about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation. For this review, the authors conducted a qualitative synthesis of published literature on cancer patient navigation. By using the keywords 'navigator' or 'navigation' and 'cancer,' 45 articles were identified in the PubMed database and from reference searches that were published or in press through October 2007. Sixteen studies provided data on the efficacy of navigation in improving timeliness and receipt of cancer screening, diagnostic follow-up care, and treatment. Patient navigation services were defined and differentiated from other outreach services. Overall, there was evidence of some degree of efficacy for patient navigation in increasing participation in cancer screening and adherence to diagnostic follow-up care after the detection of an abnormality. The reported increases in screening ranged from 10.8% to 17.1%, and increases in adherence to diagnostic follow-up care ranged from 21% to 29.2% compared with control patients. There was less evidence regarding the efficacy of patient navigation in reducing either late-stage cancer diagnosis or delays in the initiation of cancer treatment or improving outcomes during cancer survivorship. There were methodological limitations in most studies, such as a lack of control groups, small sample sizes, and contamination with other interventions. Although cancer-related patient navigation interventions are being adopted increasingly across the United States and Canada, further research will be necessary to evaluate their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in improving cancer care.     

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: A systematic review

Published studies regarding patient navigation (PN) and cancer were reviewed to assess quality, determine gaps, and identify avenues for future research. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PN across the cancer continuum. Each included article was scored independently by 2 separate reviewers with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. The current review identified 113 published articles that assessed PN and cancer care, between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018, 14 of which reported on the cost-effectiveness of PN programs. Most publications focused on the effectiveness of PN in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%) along the continuum of cancer care. Many described the effectiveness of PN for breast cancer (52%) or colorectal cancer outcomes (51%). Most studies reported favorable outcomes for PN programs, including increased uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, higher completion rates for cancer therapy, and higher rates of attending medical appointments. Cost-effectiveness studies showed that PN programs yielded financial benefits. Quality assessment showed that 75 of the 113 included articles (65%) had 2 or more weak components. In conclusion, this review indicates numerous gaps within the PN and cancer literature where improvement is needed. For example, more research is needed at other points along the continuum of cancer care outside of screening and diagnosis. In addition, future research into the effectiveness of PN for understudied cancers outside of breast and colorectal cancer is necessary along with an assessment of cost-effectiveness and more rigorous reporting of study designs and results in published articles.     

National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures

BACKGROUND.

Patient, provider, and systems barriers contribute to delays in cancer care, a lower quality of care, and poorer outcomes in vulnerable populations, including low‐income, underinsured, and racial/ethnic minority populations. Patient navigation is emerging as an intervention to address this problem, but navigation requires a clear definition and a rigorous testing of its effectiveness. Pilot programs have provided some evidence of benefit, but have been limited by evaluation of single‐site interventions and varying definitions of navigation. To overcome these limitations, a 9‐site National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) was initiated.

METHODS.

The PNRP is charged with designing, implementing, and evaluating a generalizable patient navigation program targeting vulnerable populations. Through a formal committee structure, the PNRP has developed a definition of patient navigation and metrics to assess the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse settings, compared with concurrent continuous control groups.

RESULTS.

The PNRP defines patient navigation as support and guidance offered to vulnerable persons with abnormal cancer screening or a cancer diagnosis, with the goal of overcoming barriers to timely, quality care. Primary outcomes of the PNRP are 1) time to diagnostic resolution; 2) time to initiation of cancer treatment; 3) patient satisfaction with care; and 4) cost effectiveness, for breast, cervical, colon/rectum, and/or prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS.

The metrics to assess the processes and outcomes of patient navigation have been developed for the NCI‐sponsored PNRP. If the metrics are found to be valid and reliable, they may prove useful to other investigators. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

The Role of Patient Navigation on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion and Education: a Review of the Literature

Although the general assumption is that patient navigation helps patients adhere to CRC screening recommendations, concrete evidence for its effectiveness is still currently under investigation. The present literature review was conducted to explore effectiveness of patient navigation and education on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion in medically underserved populations. Data collection included PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane reviews searches. Study inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and prospective investigations that included an intervention and control group. Case series, brief communications, commentaries, case reports, and uncontrolled studies were excluded. Twenty-seven of the 36 studies screened for relevance were selected for inclusion. Most studies explored the utility of lay and clinic-based patient navigation. Others implemented interventions that included tailored messaging, and culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and education efforts to meet CRC screening needs of medically underserved individuals. More recent studies have begun to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses of patient navigation programs that impacted CRC screening and completion. Peer-reviewed publications consistently indicate a positive impact of patient navigation programs on CRC screening completion, as well have provided preliminary evidence for their cost-effectiveness.     

Nurses as patient navigators in cancer diagnosis: review, consultation and model design

The diagnostic phase of cancer care is an anxious time for patients. Patient navigation is a way of assisting and supporting individuals during this time. The aim of this review is to explore patient navigation and its role in the diagnostic phase of cancer care. We reviewed the literature for definitions and models of navigation, preparation for the role and impact on patient outcomes, specifically addressing the role of the nurse in patient navigation. Interviews and focus groups with healthcare providers and managers provided further insight from these stakeholder groups. Common to most definitions of navigation is the navigator's multifaceted role in facilitating processes of care, assisting patients to overcome barriers and providing information and support. Navigation may be provided by laypersons, clerical staff and/or healthcare professionals. In the diagnostic phase it has the potential to affect efficiency of diagnostic testing, patients' experience during this time and preparation for decision-making around treatment options. Patient care during the diagnostic phase requires various levels of navigation, according to individual informational, physical and psychosocial needs. Identifying those individuals who require more support--whether physical or psychosocial--during the diagnostic phase is of critical importance.     

Patient navigation for breast and colorectal cancer in 3 community hospital settings: An economic evaluation

BACKGROUND:

The Ralph Lauren Cancer Center implemented patient navigation programs in sites across the United States building on the model pioneered by Harold P. Freeman, MD. Patient navigation targets medically underserved with the objective of reducing the time interval between an abnormal cancer finding, diagnostic resolution, and treatment initiation. In this study, the authors assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adding patient navigation to standard cancer care in 3 community hospitals in the United States.

METHODS:

A decision‐analytic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of a colorectal and breast cancer patient navigation program over the period of 1 year compared with standard care. Data sources included published estimates in the literature and primary costs, aggregate patient demographics, and outcome data from 3 patient navigation programs.

RESULTS:

After 1 year, compared with standard care alone, it was estimated that offering patient navigation with standard care would allow an additional 78 of 959 individuals with an abnormal breast cancer screening and an additional 21 of 411 individuals with abnormal colonoscopies to reach timely diagnostic resolution. Without including medical treatment costs saved, the cost‐effectiveness ratio ranged from $511 to $2080 per breast cancer diagnostic resolution achieved and from $1192 to $9708 per colorectal cancer diagnostic resolution achieved.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current results indicated that implementing breast or colorectal cancer patient navigation in community hospital settings in which low‐income populations are served may be a cost‐effective addition to standard cancer care in the United States. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: current practices and approaches

BACKGROUND: Logistic, cultural, educational, and other barriers can impede the delivery of high-quality cancer care to underserved patients. Patient navigation services represent one innovation for addressing perceived barriers to care encountered by disadvantaged patients. In this report, the authors have 1) defined patient navigation, distinguishing it from other cancer support services; 2) described how programs are organized; and 3) discussed the need for research on program effectiveness. METHODS: Information was examined on navigation programs published in the scientific literature and on line. Qualitative research also was conducted, consisting of direct observation of patient care in cancer clinics with and without navigators in northern California, in-person interviews with personnel and patients in the clinics observed, and telephone interviews with navigators at four sites across the United States. RESULTS: The authors found that navigation services have been implemented at all stages of cancer care: prevention, screening, treatment, and survival. Navigators differ from other cancer support personnel in their orientation toward flexible problem solving to overcome perceived barriers to care rather than the provision of a predefined set of services. There are no rigorous demonstrations of the effects and effectiveness of navigation, although such studies are underway. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, patient navigation is understudied, and literature documenting its effects and effectiveness is scant. Rigorous studies are needed of the navigator role and program costs and benefits. Such studies will facilitate an assessment of program effectiveness, feasibility across a range of health care settings, and performance relative to alternative approaches for addressing barriers to care among the underserved.     

Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening in South Asian Immigrants: A Systematic Review

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to broaden our knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in South Asian immigrants living in Canada, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia by determining the barriers and facilitators and examining interventions for CRC screening. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Google was conducted using South Asian, Asian Indians, cancer screening, colorectal neoplasm, early detection of cancer, and mass screening as search terms. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only research articles written in English from 2000 to July 2022 were collected. Inclusion criteria included all English-language articles, the South Asian population, and either reporting barriers, facilitators, interventions, or recommendations for CRC screening. Exclusion criteria included all articles that did not meet inclusion criteria or were duplicates. A total of 32 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion and were retrieved for further analysis. The countries of origin in the articles reviewed included Canada, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. Results: In general, the studies indicated that South Asians have low CRC screening rates. The most common barriers reported were poor knowledge/awareness of CRC and CRC screening, lack of physician recommendation, psychological factors (e.g., fear, anxiety, and shame), cultural/religious factors, and sociodemographic factors (language barrier, lower income, and female gender). The most important facilitator reported was the physician’s recommendation. Six intervention studies of either education or organized screening programs were shown to have a positive influence by increasing knowledge and improving attitudes toward CRC screening. Conclusion: Of the limited number of studies identified, the population categorized as South Asians was largely heterogeneous, including a diversity of ethnicities. Although the rates of CRC among South Asians were relatively low, there remain many cultural barriers to the awareness of and screening for CRC in this population. Further research in this population is needed to better identify the factors related to CRC in individuals of South Asian ethnicity. Recommending CRC screening by physicians and mid-level providers and educating patients with culturally sensitive programs and materials are important to increase knowledge and awareness of CRC and CRC screening.     

Barriers and Challenges of Cancer Patients and Their Experience with Patient Navigators in the Rural US/Mexico Border Region

Patient navigation is a widely used approach to minimize health disparities among socioeconomically marginalized cancer patients. Although patient navigation is widely used, there is a dearth of studies exploring patient experience with navigators among rural cancer patients. This qualitative study explores the challenges and barriers to cancer care faced by cancer patients living in a US/Mexico border region in Southern California. We individually interviewed 22 cancer patients, most of whom were Latino. Data were analyzed using constant comparison with a reiterative analysis method. The main themes relating to barriers to care and experiences with patient navigators include the following: (1) removing financial barriers, (2) coordinating services, and (3) providing therapeutic interventions. The cancer patients highly valued the navigators for their knowledge about community resources, support, and advocacy. This study suggests that it is imperative that navigators know the regional and binational health care utilization issues that impact patients’ access to cancer care.     

Do Better-Rated Navigators Improve Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care?

Patient navigation has emerged as a promising strategy for addressing racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer-related care. However, little is known about the impact of patients’ perception of the quality of navigation on patient outcomes. We examined the impact of better-rated navigators on patients’ satisfaction with cancer-related care. The sample included 1,593 adults (85.8 % with abnormal cancer screening and 14.2 % with confirmed cancer diagnosis) who received patient navigation. We defined better-rated navigators as those scoring above the first quartile of mean scores on the Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator scale. We defined patient satisfaction based on scores above or below the median of the Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC) scale. We controlled for patient and site characteristics using backward selection logistic regression analyses. Among patients with abnormal screening, having a better-rated navigator was associated with higher score on the PSCC (p?<?0.05). After controlling for other bivariate predictors of satisfaction (e.g., age, race, income, and household size), navigation by better-rated navigators was associated with a greater likelihood of having higher patient satisfaction [odds ratio (OR), 1.38; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.05–1.82]. Similar findings between better-rated navigators and score on the PSCC were found for participants with diagnosed cancer (OR, 3.06; 95 % CI, 1.56–6.0). Patients navigated by better-rated navigators reported higher satisfaction with their cancer-related care.     

Providers’ Perspectives of Survivorship Care for Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer

We examined healthcare providers’ perceptions of the goals of survivorship care and survivor programs, systems-level barriers and individual patient-level barriers to engaging patients in survivorship care, and potential resources for increasing engagement. In 2012, we recruited 21 healthcare providers of young adult survivors of childhood cancers from a children’s hospital and a cancer center in the Southeastern USA to complete telephone-based semi-structured interviews. The sample was 45.95 years old (SD?=?7.57) on average, 52.4 % female, and 81.0 % MDs. The major goals of survivorship programs identified were medical care management (e.g., addressing late and long-term effects, providing survivorship care plans (SCPs), assisting in transition of care) and holistic care including addressing psychosocial issues and promoting healthy lifestyles. Systems-level barriers to engagement in survivorship care included limited resources (e.g., time), role confusion (e.g., within cancer centers, from treatment team to survivorship care, role of primary care providers), communication challenges within the medical system (e.g., limited tracking of patients, lack of understanding of the role of survivorship clinic), communication challenges with patients (e.g., setting expectations regarding transition to survivorship care), and lack of insurance coverage. Perceived patient-level factors included psychological barriers (e.g., fear, avoidance), resistance to survivorship care, and physical barriers (e.g., distance from survivorship clinics). Resources to address these barriers included increased access to information, technology-based resources, and ensuring valuable services. There are several systems-level and patient-level barriers to survivorship care, thus requiring multilevel interventions to promote engagement in care among young adult survivors of childhood cancer.     

Do Navigators’ Estimates of Navigation Intensity Predict Navigation Time for Cancer Care?

Patient navigation requires that patient load be equitably distributed. We examined whether navigators could predict the relative amount of time needed by different patients for navigation. Analysis of 139 breast and colorectal cancer patients randomized to the navigation arm of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of navigation. Navigators completed a one-item scale estimating how much navigation time patients were likely to require. Participants were mostly females (89.2%) with breast cancer (83.4%); barriers to cancer care were insurance difficulties (26.6%), social support (18.0%), and transportation (14.4%). Navigator baseline estimates of navigation intensity predicted total navigation time, independent of patient characteristics. The total number of barriers, rather than any specific type of barrier, predicted increased navigator time, with a 16% increase for each barrier. Navigators’ estimate of intensity independently predicts navigation time for cancer patients. Findings have implications for assigning navigator case loads.     

Efficacy of Cancer Care Communication Between Clinicians and Latino Patients in a Rural US-Mexico Border Region: a Qualitative Study of Barriers and Facilitators to Better Communication

Quality of clinician-patient cancer communication is vital to cancer care and survivorship. Racial/ethnic minority patients in rural regions may have unique characteristics including cultural beliefs, language barriers, and low health literacy which require effective cross-cultural cancer communication. Despite the growing US population of racial/ethnic minorities and widespread emphasis on culturally appropriate health communication, little is known about challenges and facilitators of cancer communication among underserved rural Latino cancer patients in the US-Mexico border region. This study conducted secondary data analysis of interview data collected from 22 individual cancer patients living on the US side of the US-Mexico border. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore a priori questions regarding patient experiences with cancer care communication with their providers. Emerging themes included lack of language concordance, patient perspectives on clarity and accuracy of information provided, patient perceptions on provider sensitivity in giving cancer diagnosis, and improving the clinical interpersonal relationship. Practice guidelines are suggested and discussed. These findings illuminate the importance of advancing improvement of cancer communication between clinicians and Spanish language-dominant Latinos.     

New patient-centered care standards from the commission on cancer: opportunities and challenges

The Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons publishes accreditation standards that hospitals and cancer treatment centers implement to ensure quality care to cancer patients. These standards address the full spectrum of cancer care, from cancer prevention to survivorship and end-of-life care. The most recent revisions of these standards included new standards in "patient-centered areas," including the provision of palliative care services, treatment and survivorship plans, psychological distress screening, and patient navigation programs. Unified by their emphasis on the early identification of patients at risk of receiving suboptimal care and the importance of ensuring that issues arising during and after completion of cancer treatment are addressed, they are a welcome expansion of the standards guiding cancer care. As with all standards, however, the next steps will be to further define how they will be implemented and to determine how success will be assessed. This will require ongoing critical evaluation of the standards and their implementation, including the need for member institutions to define successful implementation methods and measurable outcomes and identification of areas most in need of further research.     

Oncologists experience with second primary cancer screening: current practices and barriers and potential solutions

Objectives: Screening for second primary cancer (SPC) is one of the key components of cancer survivorship care. The aim of the present study was to explore oncologists’ experience with promoting second primary cancer screening. Methods: Two focus group interviews were conducted with 12 oncologists of diverse backgrounds. Recurrent issues were identified and placed into thematic categories. Results: Most of the oncologists did not consider SPC screening promotion as their responsibility and did not cover it in routine care. All of the study participants had experience with unexpected SPC cases, and they were under emotional tress. There was no systematic manner of providing SPC screening. Oncologists usually prescribe SPC screening in response to patients’ requests, and there was no active promotion of SPC screening. Short consultation time, limited knowledge about cancer screening, no established guideline for SPC screening, and disagreement with patients about oncologists’ roles were major barriers to its promotion. An institution-based shared care model was suggested as a potential solution for promoting SPC screening given current oncology practices in Korea. Conclusion: Oncologists could not effectively deal with the occurrence of SPC, and they were not actively promoting SPC screening. Lack of knowledge, limited health care resources, and no established guidelines were major barriers for promoting SPC screening to cancer survivors. More active involvement of oncologists and a systematic approach such as shared-care models would be necessary for promoting SPC screening considering increasing number of cancer survivors who are vulnerable.     

Nurse Navigators’ Views on Patient and System Factors Associated with Navigation Needs among Women with Breast Cancer

Coordinating breast cancer treatment is a complex task that can overwhelm patients and their support networks. Though the Cancer Patient Navigator (CPN) program in Nova Scotia (NS) provides professional assistance to patients, certain groups of patients may still face barriers to accessing its services. Employing interviews and a modified Delphi approach with CPN participants, this study sought to identify factors associated with the need for navigation to help better target CPN program referrals among breast cancer patients. Six CPNs were recruited directly through the CPN program manager for interviews and surveys. The CPNs identified 27 different factors, which were divided into 4 categories: sociodemographic, psychological, clinical and health systems. While these patient factors (particularly sociodemographic) are not directly modifiable, awareness of their association with the need for navigation could be used to better target patients with a high need for navigation for referral to CPN services.     

Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers

Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention involving trained healthcare workers who assist patients in assessing and mitigating personal and environmental factors to promote healthy behaviors. The purpose of this research is to systematically assess the efficacy of patient navigation and similar programs to improve diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting medically underserved populations. A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL to identify potential studies. Eligible studies were those containing original peer-reviewed research reports in English on patient navigation, community health workers, vulnerable and underserved populations, and healthcare disparity. Specific outcomes regarding patient navigator including the effect of the intervention on definitive diagnosis and effect on initiation of treatment were extracted from each study. The search produced 1428 articles, and 16 were included for review. All studies involved patient navigation in the field of oncology in underserved populations. Timing of initial contact with a patient navigator after diagnostic or screening testing is correlated to the effectiveness of the navigator intervention. The majority of the studies reported significantly shorter time intervals to diagnosis and to treatment with patient navigation. Patient navigation expedites oncologic diagnosis and treatment of patients in underserved populations. This intervention is more efficacious when utilized shortly after screening or diagnostic testing.