Roshan Bastani1, Cynthia M Mojica, Barbara A Berman, Patricia A Ganz. 1. School of Public Health, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, University of California-Los Angeles, 650 Charles Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. bastani@ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Timely diagnostic resolution of abnormal breast findings represents a critical step in efforts to reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Yet, follow-up rates among resource poor populations are not optimal. Efforts to mitigate this disparity are needed. We report results of a randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a patient support and navigation intervention in increasing timely diagnostic resolution of abnormal breast findings among indigent women. METHODS:Women (n = 1,708) diagnosed with a breast abnormality at two public hospitals were randomized to an intervention or control group. The intervention, delivered through telephone, involved one call from a professional health worker and multiple calls from a lay health worker. The outcome, timely diagnostic resolution, defined as receipt of a definitive diagnosis (malignant or benign) within 6 months of the index referral, was assessed through medical chart audit. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses revealed no significant effect of the intervention on timely diagnostic resolution. Diagnostic resolution rates were 55% and 56%, respectively, in the intervention and control arms. The significant predictors were method of abnormality identification (odds ratio = 1.50) and location of first scheduled appointment (odds ratio = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was not effective in creating change within the County health system. Achieving optimum diagnostic follow-up may require more intensive interventions than the one tested. In addition, system-level rather than patient-level interventions may hold more promise. IMPACT: There are no randomized trials reported in the literature testing interventions to increase diagnostic follow-up of breast abnormalities. Future research might test patient and system-level interventions that can be sustained beyond the study period. (c)2010 AACR.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Timely diagnostic resolution of abnormal breast findings represents a critical step in efforts to reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Yet, follow-up rates among resource poor populations are not optimal. Efforts to mitigate this disparity are needed. We report results of a randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a patient support and navigation intervention in increasing timely diagnostic resolution of abnormal breast findings among indigent women. METHODS:Women (n = 1,708) diagnosed with a breast abnormality at two public hospitals were randomized to an intervention or control group. The intervention, delivered through telephone, involved one call from a professional health worker and multiple calls from a lay health worker. The outcome, timely diagnostic resolution, defined as receipt of a definitive diagnosis (malignant or benign) within 6 months of the index referral, was assessed through medical chart audit. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses revealed no significant effect of the intervention on timely diagnostic resolution. Diagnostic resolution rates were 55% and 56%, respectively, in the intervention and control arms. The significant predictors were method of abnormality identification (odds ratio = 1.50) and location of first scheduled appointment (odds ratio = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was not effective in creating change within the County health system. Achieving optimum diagnostic follow-up may require more intensive interventions than the one tested. In addition, system-level rather than patient-level interventions may hold more promise. IMPACT: There are no randomized trials reported in the literature testing interventions to increase diagnostic follow-up of breast abnormalities. Future research might test patient and system-level interventions that can be sustained beyond the study period. (c)2010 AACR.
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Michelle L Kurta; Rory C Weier; Greg S Young; Autumn B Carey; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kyounghae Kim; Janet S Choi; Eunsuk Choi; Carrie L Nieman; Jin Hui Joo; Frank R Lin; Laura N Gitlin; Hae-Ra Han Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Tracy A Battaglia; Linda Burhansstipanov; Samantha S Murrell; Andrea J Dwyer; Sarah E Caron Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Silvia Tejeda; Julie S Darnell; Young I Cho; Melinda R Stolley; Talar W Markossian; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Elizabeth Whitley; Samantha Hendren; Peter Raich; Sharon Humiston; Paul Winters; Pascal Jean-Pierre; Patricia Valverde; William Thorland; Ronald Epstein Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; Marlene Rivera; William J Fulp; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Electra D Paskett; Mira L Katz; Douglas M Post; Michael L Pennell; Gregory S Young; Eric E Seiber; J Phil Harrop; Cecilia R DeGraffinreid; Cathy M Tatum; Julie A Dean; David M Murray Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Yvonne N Flores; Pamela L Davidson; Terry T Nakazono; Daisy C Carreon; Cynthia M Mojica; Roshan Bastani Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.295