BACKGROUND: Inequity in cancer outcomes for minorities and vulnerable populations has been linked to delays in cancer care that arise from barriers to accessing care. Social service barriers represent those obstacles related to meeting life's most basic needs, like housing and income, which are often supported by public policy, regulation and services. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between social service barriers and timely diagnostic resolution after a cancer screening abnormality. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the intervention arm of Boston Patient Navigation Research Program (2007-2008) conducted across six urban community health centers. Subjects with no barriers, other barriers, and social service barriers were compared on their time to diagnostic resolution. SUBJECTS: Women ≥ 18 years of age with a breast or cervical cancer screening abnormality. MAIN MEASURES: Social service barriers included: income supports, housing and utilities, education and employment, and personal/family stability and safety. Time to event analyses compared across five groups: those with no barriers, one barrier (other), one barrier (social service), two or more barriers (all other), and two or more barriers (at least one social service). KEY RESULTS: 1,481 navigated women; 31 % Hispanic, 27 % Black, 32 % White; 37 % non-English speakers and 28 % had private health insurance. Eighty-eight women (6 %) had social service barriers. Compared to those without social service barriers, those with were more likely to be Hispanic, younger, have public/no health insurance, and have multiple barriers. Those with two or more barriers (at least one social service barrier), had the longest time to resolution compared to the other four groups (aHR resolution < 60 days = 0.27, ≥ 60 days = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Vulnerable women with multiple barriers, when at least one is a social service barrier, have delays in care despite navigation. The impact of patient navigation may never be fully realized if social service barriers persist without being identified or addressed.
BACKGROUND: Inequity in cancer outcomes for minorities and vulnerable populations has been linked to delays in cancer care that arise from barriers to accessing care. Social service barriers represent those obstacles related to meeting life's most basic needs, like housing and income, which are often supported by public policy, regulation and services. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between social service barriers and timely diagnostic resolution after a cancer screening abnormality. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the intervention arm of Boston Patient Navigation Research Program (2007-2008) conducted across six urban community health centers. Subjects with no barriers, other barriers, and social service barriers were compared on their time to diagnostic resolution. SUBJECTS:Women ≥ 18 years of age with a breast or cervical cancer screening abnormality. MAIN MEASURES: Social service barriers included: income supports, housing and utilities, education and employment, and personal/family stability and safety. Time to event analyses compared across five groups: those with no barriers, one barrier (other), one barrier (social service), two or more barriers (all other), and two or more barriers (at least one social service). KEY RESULTS: 1,481 navigated women; 31 % Hispanic, 27 % Black, 32 % White; 37 % non-English speakers and 28 % had private health insurance. Eighty-eight women (6 %) had social service barriers. Compared to those without social service barriers, those with were more likely to be Hispanic, younger, have public/no health insurance, and have multiple barriers. Those with two or more barriers (at least one social service barrier), had the longest time to resolution compared to the other four groups (aHR resolution < 60 days = 0.27, ≥ 60 days = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Vulnerable women with multiple barriers, when at least one is a social service barrier, have delays in care despite navigation. The impact of patient navigation may never be fully realized if social service barriers persist without being identified or addressed.
Authors: Dana Weintraub; Melissa A Rodgers; Luba Botcheva; Anna Loeb; Rachael Knight; Karina Ortega; Brooke Heymach; Megan Sandel; Lynne Huffman Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-05
Authors: Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Electra Paskett; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter C Raich; Elizabeth M Whitley; William Thorland; Patricia Valverde; Diane Fairclough 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: Heather J Hoffman; Nancy L LaVerda; Heather A Young; Paul H Levine; Lisa M Alexander; Rachel Brem; Larisa Caicedo; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Wayne Frederick; William Funderburk; Elmer Huerta; Sandra Swain; Steven R Patierno Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tracy A Battaglia; Julie S Darnell; Naomi Ko; Fred Snyder; Electra D Paskett; Kristen J Wells; Elizabeth M Whitley; Jennifer J Griggs; Anand Karnad; Heather Young; Victoria Warren-Mears; Melissa A Simon; Elizabeth Calhoun Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Derek Falk; Catherine Cubbin; Barbara Jones; Kristen Carrillo-Kappus; Andrew Crocker; Carol Rice Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: David E Gerber; Heidi A Hamann; Noel O Santini; Suhny Abbara; Hsienchang Chiu; Molly McGuire; Lisa Quirk; Hong Zhu; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Danielle D Durham; Whitney R Robinson; Sheila S Lee; Stephanie B Wheeler; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; J Michael Bowling; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ambili Ramachandran; Karen M Freund; Sharon M Bak; Timothy C Heeren; Clara A Chen; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Ambili Ramachandran; Frederick R Snyder; Mira L Katz; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Steven R Patierno; Mechelle R Sanders; Patricia A Valverde; Melissa A Simon; Victoria Warren-Mears; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Naomi Y Ko; Frederick R Snyder; Peter C Raich; Electra D Paskett; Donald J Dudley; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul H Levine; Karen M Freund Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Angie Mae Rodday; Susan K Parsons; Frederick Snyder; Melissa A Simon; Adana A M Llanos; Victoria Warren-Mears; Donald Dudley; Ji-Hyun Lee; Steven R Patierno; Talar W Markossian; Mechelle Sanders; Elizabeth M Whitley; Karen M Freund Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 6.860