CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12

Evaluating the sustainability of patient navigation programs in oncology by length of existence, funding, and payment model participation

Garfield, Kathryn M., Franklin, Elizabeth F., Battaglia, Tracy A., Dwyer, Andrea J., Freund, Karen M., Wightman, Patrick D., Rohan, Elizabeth A.·2022·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.33932PMC PMC10961851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs. METHODS: This cross‐sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical‐based and community‐based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019. RESULTS: Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value‐added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.33932

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence from systematic and implementation studies demonstrates that navigation programs can improve treatment initiation, adherence, and patient satisfaction, particularly in underserved populations.

    “Evidence from systematic and implementation studies demonstrates that navigation programs can improve treatment initiation, adherence, and patient satisfaction, particularly in underserved populations [24–26].”

    From A decision-oriented framework for genomic testing across the prostate cancer continuum (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that patient navigation shortens time to treatment initiation, increases adherence to follow-up after positive cancer screening tests, and improves patient satisfaction. It does not establish improved treatment adherence generally or show that these benefits are particularly pronounced in underserved populations; its reference to vulnerable populations concerns reduced anxiety. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Implementation barriers include clinician uncertainty about assay interpretation, inconsistent reimbursement, insufficient decision support, and poorly defined handoffs between oncology, pathology, genetics, and supportive care teams.

    “Implementation barriers also include clinician uncertainty about assay interpretation, inconsistent reimbursement, insufficient decision support, and poorly defined handoffs between oncology, pathology, genetics, and supportive care teams [23, 24].”

    From A decision-oriented framework for genomic testing across the prostate cancer continuum (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [1]Riley S, Riley C. The role of patient navigation in improving the value of oncology care. J Clin Pathways. 2016; 2: 41– 47.
  2. [2]Shusted CS, Barta JA, Lake M, The case for patient navigation in lung cancer screening in vulnerable populations: a systematic review. Popul Health Manag. 2019; 22: 347– 361. 30407102 PMC6685525
  3. [6]DeGroff A, Schroy PC, Morrissey KG, Patient navigation for colonoscopy completion: results of an RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2017; 53: 363– 372. 28676254 PMC8855664
  4. [7]Lopez D, Pratt-Chapman ML, Rohan EA, Establishing effective patient navigation programs in oncology. Support Care Cancer. 2019; 27: 1985– 1996. 30887125 PMC8811719
  5. [8]Rohan EA, Slotman B, DeGroff A, Morrissey KG, Murillo J, Schroy P. Refining the patient navigation role in a colorectal cancer screening program: results from an intervention study. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14: 1371– 1378. 27799508 PMC5419036
  6. [9]Rocque GB, Williams CP, Jones MI, Healthcare utilization, Medicare spending, and sources of patient distress identified during implementation of a lay navigation program for older patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 167: 215– 223. 28900752
  7. [10]Balaban RB, Galbraith AA, Burns ME, Vialle-Valentin CE, Larochelle MR, Ross-Degnan D. A patient navigator intervention to reduce hospital readmissions among high-risk safety-net patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30: 907– 915. 25617166 PMC4471016
  8. [11]Willis A, Reed E, Pratt-Chapman M, Development of a framework for patient navigation: delineating roles across navigator types. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2013; 4: 20– 26.
  9. [12]Oncology Nursing Society; Association of Oncology Social Work; National Association of Social Workers. Oncology Nursing Society, the Association of Oncology Social Work, and the National Association of Social Workers joint position on the role of oncology nursing and oncology social work in patient navigation. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010; 37: 251– 252. 20439209
  10. [14]Kline RM, Rocque GB, Rohan EA, Patient navigation in cancer: the business case to support clinical needs. J Oncol Pract. 2019; 15: 585– 590. 31509483 PMC8790714
  11. [15]Freund KM. Implementation of evidence-based patient navigation programs. Acta Oncol. 2017; 56: 123– 127. 28033027
  12. [16]Battaglia TA, Fleisher L, Dwyer A, Barriers and opportunities to measuring oncology patient navigation impact: a national survey. Cancer. 2022; 128(13 suppl): 2568– 2577. 35699612
  13. [19]Francis L, Dunt D, Cadilhac DA. How is the sustainability of chronic disease health programmes empirically measured in hospital and related healthcare services?—a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2016; 6: E010944. PMC4893855 27246000
  14. [21]Bernardo BM, Zhang X, Beverly Hery CM, Meadows RJ, Paskett ED. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: a systematic review. Cancer. 2019; 125: 2747– 2761. 31034604
  15. [22]Bensink ME, Ramsey SD, Battaglia T, Costs and outcomes evaluation of patient navigation after abnormal cancer screening: evidence from the Patient Navigation Research Program. Cancer. 2014; 120: 570– 578. 24166217 PMC3946403
  16. [23]Kim KE, Randal F, Johnson M, Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Cancer. 2018; 124: 4137– 4144. 30359474 PMC6263829
  17. [24]Markossian TW, Calhoun EA. Are breast cancer navigation programs cost-effective? Evidence from the Chicago Cancer Navigation Project. Health Policy. 2011; 99: 52– 59. 20685001 PMC3005996
  18. [25]Rice K, Sharma K, Li C, Butterly L, Gersten J, DeGroff A. Cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in New Hampshire. Cancer. 2018; 125: 601– 609. 30548480 PMC6399743
  19. [26]Shih YT, Chien C, Moguel R, Hernandez M, Hajek RA, Jones LA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a capitated patient navigation program for Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer. Health Serv Res. 2016; 51: 746– 767. 26119569 PMC4799903
  20. [28]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare program: hospital outpatient prospective payment and ambulatory surgical center payment systems and quality reporting programs; new categories for hospital outpatient department prior authorization process; clinical laboratory fee schedule: laboratory date of service policy; overall hospital quality star rating methodology; and physician-owned hospitals. Fed Regist. 2020; 85: 48772– 49082.
  21. [30]Rocque GB, Pisu M, Jackson BE, Resource use and Medicare costs during lay navigation for geriatric patients with cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3: 817– 825. 28125760 PMC5540048
  22. [32]Freeman HP, Rodriguez RL. History and principles of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011; 117(15 suppl): 3537– 3540. 21780088 PMC4557777
  23. [33]Khullar D, Bond AM, Schpero WL. COVID-19 and the financial health of US hospitals. JAMA. 2020; 323: 2127– 2128. 32364565

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garfield, K. M., Franklin, E. F., Battaglia, T. A., Dwyer, A. J., Freund, K. M., Wightman, P. D., & Rohan, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation Harvard Law School Cambridge Massachusetts
  • Cancer Support Community Washington District of Columbia
  • Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine Boston Massachusetts
  • Colorado School of Public Health University of Colorado Cancer Center Denver Colorado
  • Department of Medicine Tufts Medical Center Boston Massachusetts
  • Center for Population Health University of Arizona Tucson Arizona
  • Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta Georgia
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-06-14
Volume
128
Issue
S13
Pages
2578-2589
ISSN
  • 0008-543X
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.33932
PMC
PMC10961851
Cited by
12
References
1
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Funders
  • AbbVie
  • Genentech

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