CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24

Implementing patient navigation programs: Considerations and lessons learned from the Alliance to Advance Patient‐Centered Cancer Care

Ver Hoeve, Elizabeth S., Simon, Melissa A., Danner, Sankirtana M., Washington, Antonio J., Coples, Susan D., Percac‐Lima, Sanja, Whited, Emma C., Paskett, Electra D. +11 more·2022·Cancer
DOI 10.1002/cncr.34251PMC PMC9261966
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Six multidisciplinary cancer centers were selected and funded by the Merck Foundation (2017‐2021) to collaborate in the Alliance to Advance Patient‐Centered Cancer Care (“Alliance”), an initiative to improve patient access, minimize health disparities, and enhance the quality of patient‐centered cancer care. These sites share their insights on implementation and expansion of their patient navigation efforts. Methods: Patient navigation represents an evidence‐based health care intervention designed to enhance patient‐centered care and care coordination. Investigators at 6 National Cancer Institute‐designated cancer centers outline their approaches to reducing health care disparities and synthesize their efforts to ensure sustainability and successful transferability in the management of patients with cancer and their families in real‐world health care settings. Results: Insights are outlined within the context of patient navigation program effectiveness and supported by examples from Alliance cancer center sites: 1) understand the patient populations, particularly underserved and high‐risk patients; 2) capitalize on the existing infrastructure and institutional commitment to support and sustain patient navigation; and 3) build capacity by mobilizing community support outside of the cancer center. Conclusions: This process‐level article reflects the importance of collaboration and the usefulness of partnering with other cancer centers to share interdisciplinary insights while undergoing intervention development, implementation, and expansion. These collective insights may be useful to staff at other cancer centers that look to implement, enhance, or evaluate the effectiveness of their patient navigation interventions.

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.34251

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 [25]

    The Results (Program Highlights; page unavailable) report reduced time to treatment initiation and improved treatment compliance at Alliance sites serving underserved patients. Materials and Methods lists patient satisfaction as an outcome assessed, but the passages do not report an improvement in satisfaction. Thus the source supports treatment initiation and adherence, not all three claimed benefits. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 44

  1. [2]Raleigh ZT. A biopsychosocial perspective on the experience of lung cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2010; 28: 116– 125. doi: 10.1080/07347330903438990 20391069 · DOI
  2. [3]PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board. Financial toxicity (financial distress) and cancer treatment (PDQ): patient version. In: PDQ Cancer Information Summaries. National Cancer Institute; 2019. 28682576
  3. [4]Pisu M, Henrikson NB, Banegas MP, Yabroff KR. Costs of cancer along the care continuum: what we can expect based on recent literature. Cancer. 2018; 124: 4181– 4191. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31643 30475400 · DOI
  4. [5]Zavala VA, Bracci PM, Carethers JM, Cancer health disparities in racial/ethnic minorities in the United States. Br J Cancer. 2021; 124: 315– 332. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01038-6 32901135 PMC7852513 · DOI
  5. [6]Bailey ZD, Feldman JM, Bassett MT. How structural racism works—racist policies as a root cause of U.S. racial health inequities. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384: 768– 773. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms2025396 33326717 PMC11393777 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [7]A summary of the American Cancer Society Report to the Nation: cancer in the poor. CA Cancer J Clin. 1989; 39: 263– 265. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.39.5.263 2513098 · DOI
  7. [8]Aslam Khan M, Kumar Patel G, Kumar Srivastava S, Looking at cancer health disparities without the colored lenses. Cancer Health Disparities. 2019; 3: e1– e9. doi: 10.9777/chd.2019.1004 PMC6705599 31440743 · DOI
  8. [9]Ko NY, Hong S, Winn RA, Calip GS. Association of insurance status and racial disparities with the detection of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 385– 392. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5672 31917398 PMC6990828 · DOI
  9. [10]Olazagasti C, Duma N. Cancer care for all? Tales of caring for undocumented patients with cancer. Oncologist. 2020; 25: 552– 554. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0113 32396688 PMC7356780 · DOI
  10. [12]Molina G, Qadan M. Addressing fragmentation of care requires strengthening of health systems and cross-institutional collaboration. Cancer. 2019; 125: 3296– 3298. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32337 31299086 · DOI
  11. [13]Weaver SJ, Jacobsen PB. Cancer care coordination: opportunities for healthcare delivery research. Transl Behav Med. 2018; 8: 503– 508. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibx079 29800404 PMC6257019 · DOI
  12. [14]Oluwole SF, Ali AO, Adu A, Impact of a cancer screening program on breast cancer stage at diagnosis in a medically underserved urban community. J Am Coll Surg. 2003; 196: 180– 188. doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01765-9 12595043 · DOI
  13. [15]Hedlund N, Risendal BC, Pauls H, Dissemination of patient navigation programs across the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2014; 20: e15– e24. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182a505ec 24858322 · DOI
  14. [16]Battaglia TA, Burhansstipanov L, Murrell SS, Dwyer AJ, Caron ASE. Assessing the impact of patient navigation: prevention and early detection metrics. Cancer. 2011; 117(suppl 15): 3553– 3564. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26267 21780090 PMC4560256 · DOI
  15. [17]Braun KL, Kagawa-Singer M, Holden AEC, Cancer patient navigator tasks across the cancer care continuum. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012; 23: 398– 413. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0029 22423178 PMC3302357 · DOI
  16. [18]Wells KJ, Valverde P, Ustjanauskas AE, Calhoun EA, Risendal BC. What are patient navigators doing, for whom, and where? A national survey evaluating the types of services provided by patient navigators. Patient Educ Couns. 2018; 101: 285– 294. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.017 28935442 PMC5808907 · DOI
  17. [19]Ustjanauskas AE, Bredice M, Nuhaily S, Kath L, Wells KJ. Training in patient navigation. Health Promot Pract. 2016; 17: 373– 381. doi: 10.1177/1524839915616362 26656600 PMC4899310 · DOI
  18. [20]Valverde PA, Calhoun E, Esparza A, Wells KJ, Risendal BC. The early dissemination of patient navigation interventions: results of a respondent-driven sample survey. Transl Behav Med. 2018; 8: 456. doi: 10.1093/TBM/IBX080 29800405 PMC6065542 · DOI
  19. [21]Haque S, Ebron S, Bailey B, Blumenfeld B. Use of health information technology among patient navigators in community health interventions. Perspect Heal Inf Manag. 2019; 16: 1a. PMC6462882 31019432
  20. [22]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. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32147 31034604 · DOI
  21. [23]Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019; 7: 64. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 30984733 PMC6450067 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [25]Ver Hoeve ES, High B, Hernandez M, Characterizing Pre- and Post-Intervention Barriers to Care Among Underserved Cancer Patients. In: Poster presented virtually at the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Conference. 2021.
  23. [26]Ver Hoeve ES, Ali-Akbarian L, Lothfi NM, Expanding community-focused patient navigation to address barriers to care for underserved cancer patients. In: Poster presented at the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Conference. Washington, D.C.: Society of Behavioral Medicine; 2019.
  24. [27]Naughton MJ, Salani R, Lustberg MB, PROMIS-10 scores at six months post-baseline among breast and gynecologic oncology patients participating in a text-based symptom monitoring program with patient navigation. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38(suppl 15): e19173. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_SUPPL.E19173 · DOI
  25. [28]Percac-Lima S, Ivan S, Ashburner J, Implementing a patient navigation program for community health center patients newly diagnosed with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39(suppl 28): 103. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.39.28_suppl.10333052753 · DOI
  26. [31]Batai K, Gachupin FC, Estrada AL, Garcia DO, Gomez J, Kittles RA. Patterns of cancer related health disparities in Arizona. Cancer Health Disparities. 2019; 3: e1– e20. PMC6959217 31938767
  27. [33]Paskett ED, Young GS, Bernardo BM, The CITIES Project: understanding the health of under-represented populations in Ohio. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019; 28: 442. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0793 30377208 PMC6724198 · DOI
  28. [34]Naughton MJ, Salani R, Peng J, Feasibility of implementing a text-based symptom-monitoring program of endometrial, ovarian, and breast cancer patients during treatment. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30: 3241– 3254. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02660-w 33052514 PMC8528739 · DOI
  29. [37]Neal CD, Weaver DT, Raphel TJ, Patient navigation to improve cancer screening in underserved populations: reported experiences, opportunities, and challenges. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 1565– 1572. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.03.001 29685346 · DOI
  30. [38]Freeman HP. Patient navigation: a community based strategy to reduce cancer disparities. J Urban Health. 2006; 83: 139– 141. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9030-0 16736361 PMC2527166 · DOI
  31. [39]Blake KD, Ciolino HP, Croyle RT. Population health assessment in NCI-designated cancer center catchment areas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019; 28: 428– 430. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0811 30647064 · DOI
  32. [40]Paskett ED, Hiatt RA. Catchment areas and community out-reach and engagement: the new mandate for NCI-designated cancer centers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018; 27: 517– 519. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-1050 29716925 · DOI
  33. [41]Shelef DQ, Rand C, Streisand R, Using stakeholder engagement to develop a patient-centered pediatric asthma intervention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016; 138: 1512– 1517. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.10.001 27744029 · DOI
  34. [42]Silberberg M, Martinez-Bianchi V. Community and stakeholder engagement. Prim Care. 2019; 46: 587– 594. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2019.07.014 31655754 · DOI
  35. [43]National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Establishing Effective Patient Navigation Programs in Oncology: Proceedings of a Workshop. National Academies Press; 2018. doi: 10.17226/25073 29847082 · DOI
  36. [44]Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014; 29: 1692– 1701. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x 24893581 PMC4242886 · DOI
  37. [46]Brydon-Miller M, Greenwood D, Maguire P. Why action research? Action Res. 2003; 1: 9– 28. doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002 · DOI
  38. [49]Croot L, O’Cathain A, Sworn K, Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019; 5: 127. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0512-8 31720005 PMC6839208 · DOI
  39. [52]Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manag J. 1991; 34: 555– 590. doi: 10.2307/256406 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [53]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004; 82: 581– 629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x 15595944 PMC2690184 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [54]Zafar SY. Financial toxicity of cancer care: it’s time to intervene. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108: djv370. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv370 26657334 · DOI
  42. [55]Spencer JC, Samuel CA, Rosenstein DL, Oncology navigators’ perceptions of cancer-related financial burden and financial assistance resources. Support Care Cancer. 2018; 26: 1315– 1321. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3958-3 29124417 · DOI
  43. [57]Freund KM, Battaglia TA, Calhoun E, National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures. Cancer. 2008; 113: 3391– 3399. doi: 10.1002/CNCR.23960 18951521 PMC2698219 · DOI
  44. [58]Paskett ED, Harrop JP, Wells KJ. Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61: 237– 249. doi: 10.3322/caac.20111 21659419 PMC3623288 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ver Hoeve, E. S., Simon, M. A., Danner, S. M., Washington, A. J., Coples, S. D., Percac‐Lima, S., Whited, E. C., Paskett, E. D., Naughton, M. J., Gray, D. M., Wenzel, J. A., Zabora, J. R., Hassoon, A., Tolbert, E. E., Calhoun, E., Barton, D. L., Friese, C. R., Titler, M. G., & Hamann, H. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona Tucson Arizona
  • Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center Chicago Illinois
  • Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Health System Atlanta Georgia
  • Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts
  • The Ohio State University College of Medicine Columbus Ohio
  • The Johns Hopkins University Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center Baltimore Maryland
  • The University of Michigan School of Nursing Ann Arbor Michigan
ORCID
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-05-17
Volume
128
Issue
14
Pages
2806-2816
ISSN
  • 0008-543X
  • 1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.34251
PMC
PMC9261966
Cited by
24
References
1
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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