Daniel Dohan1, Deborah Schrag. 1. Institute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. dohan@itsa.ucsf.edu
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.
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.
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Leona K Bartholomew; Amy McQueen; Judy L Bettencourt; Anthony Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; David Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; S T Hawley; R E Myers Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-06
Authors: Alexander W Dromerick; Michael C Gibbons; Dorothy F Edwards; Deeonna E Farr; Margot L Giannetti; Brisa Sánchez; Nawar M Shara; Ali Fokar; Annapurni Jayam-Trouth; Bruce Ovbiagele; Chelsea S Kidwell Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Helen Cole; Hayley S Thompson; Marilyn White; Ruth Browne; Chau Trinh-Shevrin; Scott Braithwaite; Kevin Fiscella; Carla Boutin-Foster; Joseph Ravenell Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mira L Katz; Gregory S Young; Paul L Reiter; Tracy A Battaglia; Kristen J Wells; Mechelle Sanders; Melissa Simon; Donald J Dudley; Steven R Patierno; Electra D Paskett Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2014 Jan-Feb
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Karey S Kenst; Lisa M Quintiliani; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Jennifer Murillo; Lori Pbert; Ziming Xuan; Deborah J Bowen Journal: J Ethn Subst Abuse Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.507
Authors: Jennifer K Carroll; Sharon G Humiston; Sean C Meldrum; Charcy M Salamone; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Ronald M Epstein; Kevin Fiscella Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-12-16
Authors: Benjamin G Druss; Silke A von Esenwein; Michael T Compton; Kimberly J Rask; Liping Zhao; Ruth M Parker Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 18.112