Ambili Ramachandran1, Frederick R Snyder2, Mira L Katz3, Julie S Darnell4, Donald J Dudley5, Steven R Patierno6, Mechelle R Sanders7, Patricia A Valverde8, Melissa A Simon9, Victoria Warren-Mears10, Tracy A Battaglia1. 1. Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Nova Research Company, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 6. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 8. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, Colorado. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 10. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding of the association between barriers to care and clinical outcomes within patient navigation programs. METHODS: Secondary analyses of data from the intervention arms of the Patient Navigation Research Program were performed, which included navigated participants with abnormal breast and cervical cancer screening tests from 2007 to 2010. Independent variables were: 1) the number of unique barriers to care (0, 1, 2, or ≥3) documented during patient navigation encounters; and 2) the presence of socio-legal barriers originating from social policy (yes/no). The median time to diagnostic resolution of index screening abnormalities was estimated using Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curves. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression examined the impact of barriers on time to resolution, controlling for sociodemographics and stratifying by study center. RESULTS: Among 2600 breast screening participants, approximately 75% had barriers to care documented (25% had 1 barrier, 16% had 2 barriers, and 34% had ≥3 barriers). Among 1387 cervical screening participants, greater than one-half had barriers documented (31% had 1 barrier, 11% had 2 barriers, and 13% had ≥3 barriers). Among breast screening participants, the presence of barriers was associated with less timely resolution for any number of barriers compared with no barriers. Among cervical screening participants, only the presence of ≥2 barriers was found to be associated with less timely resolution. Both types of barriers, socio-legal and other barriers, were found to be associated with delay among breast and cervical screening participants. CONCLUSIONS: Navigated women with barriers resolved cancer screening abnormalities at a slower rate compared with navigated women with no barriers. Further innovations in navigation care are necessary to maximize the impact of patient navigation programs nationwide.
BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding of the association between barriers to care and clinical outcomes within patient navigation programs. METHODS: Secondary analyses of data from the intervention arms of the Patient Navigation Research Program were performed, which included navigated participants with abnormal breast and cervical cancer screening tests from 2007 to 2010. Independent variables were: 1) the number of unique barriers to care (0, 1, 2, or ≥3) documented during patient navigation encounters; and 2) the presence of socio-legal barriers originating from social policy (yes/no). The median time to diagnostic resolution of index screening abnormalities was estimated using Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curves. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression examined the impact of barriers on time to resolution, controlling for sociodemographics and stratifying by study center. RESULTS: Among 2600 breast screening participants, approximately 75% had barriers to care documented (25% had 1 barrier, 16% had 2 barriers, and 34% had ≥3 barriers). Among 1387 cervical screening participants, greater than one-half had barriers documented (31% had 1 barrier, 11% had 2 barriers, and 13% had ≥3 barriers). Among breast screening participants, the presence of barriers was associated with less timely resolution for any number of barriers compared with no barriers. Among cervical screening participants, only the presence of ≥2 barriers was found to be associated with less timely resolution. Both types of barriers, socio-legal and other barriers, were found to be associated with delay among breast and cervical screening participants. CONCLUSIONS: Navigated women with barriers resolved cancer screening abnormalities at a slower rate compared with navigated women with no barriers. Further innovations in navigation care are necessary to maximize the impact of patient navigation programs nationwide.
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: Tracy A Battaglia; Sharon M Bak; Timothy Heeren; Clara A Chen; Richard Kalish; Stephen Tringale; James O Taylor; Barbara Lottero; A Patrick Egan; Nisha Thakrar; Karen M Freund 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: Sarah W Primeau; Karen M Freund; Ambili Ramachandran; Sharon M Bak; Timothy Heeren; Clara A Chen; Samantha Morton; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Evan M Graboyes; Chanita Hughes Halbert; Hong Li; Graham W Warren; Anthony J Alberg; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Brian Nussenbaum; Courtney H Marsh; Jessica McCay; Terry A Day; John M Kaczmar; Anand K Sharma; David M Neskey; Katherine R Sterba Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-08-27
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
Authors: Danielle R Heller; Alexander S Chiu; Kaitlin Farrell; Brigid K Killelea; Donald R Lannin Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Cheyenne M Corbett; Tamara J Somers; Christine M Nuñez; Catherine M Majestic; Rebecca A Shelby; Valarie C Worthy; Nadine J Barrett; Steven R Patierno Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.452