BACKGROUND: Patient navigation (PN) can improve breast cancer care among disadvantaged women. We evaluated the impact of a PN program on follow-up after an abnormal mammogram. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, disadvantaged women with an abnormal mammogram (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] codes 0, 3, 4, 5) cared for in a community health center (CHC) with PN were compared to those receiving care in 11 network practices without PN. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to compare the percentages receiving appropriate follow-up and time to follow-up between the groups. RESULTS: Abnormal mammography findings were reported for 132 women in the CHC with PN and 168 from practices without PN. The percentage of women with appropriate follow-up care was higher in the practice with PN than in non-PN practices (90.4% vs. 75.3%, adjusted p=0.006). RESULTS varied by BI-RADS score for women in PN and non-PN practices (BI-RADS 0, 93.7% vs. 90.2%, p=0.24; BI-RADS 3, 85.7% vs. 49.2%, p=0.003; BI-RADS 4/5, 95.1% vs. 82.8%, p=0.26). Time to follow-up was similar for BI-RADS 0 and occurred sooner for women in the PN practice than in non-PN practices for BI-RADS 3 and 4/5 (BI-RADS 3, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.41 [1.36-4.27], BI-RADS 4/5, aHR [95% CI]: 1.41 [0.88-2.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged women from a CHC with PN were more likely to receive appropriate follow-up after an abnormal mammogram than were those from practices without PN. Expanding PN to include all disadvantaged women within primary care networks could improve equity in cancer care.
BACKGROUND:Patient navigation (PN) can improve breast cancer care among disadvantaged women. We evaluated the impact of a PN program on follow-up after an abnormal mammogram. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2010, disadvantaged women with an abnormal mammogram (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] codes 0, 3, 4, 5) cared for in a community health center (CHC) with PN were compared to those receiving care in 11 network practices without PN. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to compare the percentages receiving appropriate follow-up and time to follow-up between the groups. RESULTS: Abnormal mammography findings were reported for 132 women in the CHC with PN and 168 from practices without PN. The percentage of women with appropriate follow-up care was higher in the practice with PN than in non-PN practices (90.4% vs. 75.3%, adjusted p=0.006). RESULTS varied by BI-RADS score for women in PN and non-PN practices (BI-RADS 0, 93.7% vs. 90.2%, p=0.24; BI-RADS 3, 85.7% vs. 49.2%, p=0.003; BI-RADS 4/5, 95.1% vs. 82.8%, p=0.26). Time to follow-up was similar for BI-RADS 0 and occurred sooner for women in the PN practice than in non-PN practices for BI-RADS 3 and 4/5 (BI-RADS 3, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.41 [1.36-4.27], BI-RADS 4/5, aHR [95% CI]: 1.41 [0.88-2.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged women from a CHC with PN were more likely to receive appropriate follow-up after an abnormal mammogram than were those from practices without PN. Expanding PN to include all disadvantaged women within primary care networks could improve equity in cancer care.
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Yuchiao Chang; Thomas A Lasko; Henry C Chueh; Richard W Grant; Michael J Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Young Ik Cho; Timothy P Johnson; Richard E Barrett; Richard T Campbell; Therese A Dolecek; Richard B Warnecke Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2011-02
Authors: Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Martha L Hare; Nancy LaVerda; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul Levine; David M Murray; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim; Melissa Simon; Frederick R Snyder; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth M Whitley; Paul Winters; Gregory S Young; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Tracy A Battaglia; Donald J Dudley; Roland Garcia; Amanda Greene; Elizabeth Calhoun; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Electra D Paskett; Peter C Raich Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: Lucy B Spalluto; Carolyn M Audet; Velma McBride Murry; Claudia P Barajas; Katina R Beard; Thoris T Campbell; Debbie Thomas; Maureen Sanderson; Chang Yu; Robert S Dittus; Christianne L Roumie; Consuelo H Wilkins; Martha J Shrubsole Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Clarissa Hsu; Stephanie Cruz; Hilary Placzek; Michelle Chapdelaine; Sara Levin; Fabiola Gutierrez; Sara Standish; Ian Maki; Mary Carl; Miriam Rosa Orantes; Duffy Newman; Allen Cheadle Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sage J Kim; Anne Elizabeth Glassgow; Karriem S Watson; Yamile Molina; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 6.860