The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: Current practices and approaches
Abstract
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. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How Can We Increase Translation of Research into Practice? Types of Evidence Needed
Glasgow, R. E., & Emmons, K. M. (2007) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144145 · Cited by 1,050
The role of patient navigators in eliminating health disparities
Natale‐Pereira, A., Enard, K. R., Nevarez, L., & Jones, L. A. (2011) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.26264 · Cited by 474
Patient navigators for people with chronic disease: A systematic review
McBrien, K. A., Ivers, N., Barnieh, L., Bailey, J. J., Lorenzetti, D. L., Nicholas, D., Tonelli, M., Hemmelgarn, B., Lewanczuk, R., Edwards, A., et al. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191980 · Cited by 307
Navigation delivery models and roles of navigators in primary care: a scoping literature review
Carter, N., Valaitis, R. K., Lam, A., Feather, J., Nicholl, J., & Cleghorn, L. (2018) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2889-0 · Cited by 282
Racial Differences and Disparities in Cancer Care and Outcomes
Esnaola, N. F., & Ford, M. E. (2012) · Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.soc.2012.03.012 · Cited by 144
Metadata
- Authors
- Dohan, D., & Schrag, D.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-07-11
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 848-855
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W1968541752
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: Current practices and approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.21214
- The paper
- Dohan, D., & Schrag, D. (2005). Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: Current practices and approaches. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21214
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.