Yamile Molina1, Anne E Glassgow2, Sage J Kim2, Nerida M Berrios2, Heather Pauls2, Karriem S Watson2, Julie S Darnell3, Elizabeth A Calhoun4. 1. University of Illinois at Chicago, 1603 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60622, USA. Electronic address: ymolin2@uic.edu. 2. University of Illinois at Chicago, 1603 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60622, USA. 3. Loyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60660, USA. 4. University of Illinois at Chicago, 1603 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60622, USA; University of Arizona, 550 East Van Buren Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Navigation in Medically Underserved Areas study objectives are to assess if navigation improves: 1) care uptake and time to diagnosis; and 2) outcomes depending on patients' residential medically underserved area (MUA) status. Secondary objectives include the efficacy of navigation across 1) different points of the care continuum among patients diagnosed with breast cancer; and 2) multiple regular screening episodes among patients who did not obtain breast cancer diagnoses. DESIGN/ METHODS: Our randomized controlled trial was implemented in three community hospitals in South Chicago. Eligible participants were: 1) female, 2) 18+years old, 3) not pregnant, 4) referred from a primary care provider for a screening or diagnostic mammogram based on an abnormal clinical breast exam. Participants were randomized to 1) control care or 2) receive longitudinal navigation, through treatment if diagnosed with cancer or across multiple years if asymptomatic, by a lay health worker. Participants' residential areas were identified as: 1) established MUA (before 1998), 2) new MUA (after 1998), 3) eligible/but not designated as MUA, and 4) affluent/ineligible for MUA. Primary outcomes include days to initially recommended care after randomization and days to diagnosis for women with abnormal results. Secondary outcomes concern days to treatment initiation following a diagnosis and receipt of subsequent screening following normal/benign results. DISCUSSION: This intervention aims to assess the efficacy of patient navigation on breast cancer care uptake across the continuum. If effective, the program may improve rates of early cancer detection and breast cancer morbidity.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Patient Navigation in Medically Underserved Areas study objectives are to assess if navigation improves: 1) care uptake and time to diagnosis; and 2) outcomes depending on patients' residential medically underserved area (MUA) status. Secondary objectives include the efficacy of navigation across 1) different points of the care continuum among patients diagnosed with breast cancer; and 2) multiple regular screening episodes among patients who did not obtain breast cancer diagnoses. DESIGN/ METHODS: Our randomized controlled trial was implemented in three community hospitals in South Chicago. Eligible participants were: 1) female, 2) 18+years old, 3) not pregnant, 4) referred from a primary care provider for a screening or diagnostic mammogram based on an abnormal clinical breast exam. Participants were randomized to 1) control care or 2) receive longitudinal navigation, through treatment if diagnosed with cancer or across multiple years if asymptomatic, by a lay health worker. Participants' residential areas were identified as: 1) established MUA (before 1998), 2) new MUA (after 1998), 3) eligible/but not designated as MUA, and 4) affluent/ineligible for MUA. Primary outcomes include days to initially recommended care after randomization and days to diagnosis for women with abnormal results. Secondary outcomes concern days to treatment initiation following a diagnosis and receipt of subsequent screening following normal/benign results. DISCUSSION: This intervention aims to assess the efficacy of patient navigation on breast cancer care uptake across the continuum. If effective, the program may improve rates of early cancer detection and breast cancer morbidity.
Authors: Mark B Dignan; Linda Burhansstipanov; Judy Hariton; Lisa Harjo; Terri Rattler; Rose Lee; Mondi Mason Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.302
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: 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: 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: David Ansell; Paula Grabler; Steven Whitman; Carol Ferrans; Jacqueline Burgess-Bishop; Linda Rae Murray; Ruta Rao; Elizabeth Marcus Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Elizabeth Tarlov; Shannon N Zenk; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke; Richard Block Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Yamile Molina; Sage J Kim; Nerida Berrios; Anne Elizabeth Glassgow; Yazmin San Miguel; Julie S Darnell; Heather Pauls; Ganga Vijayasiri; Richard B Warnecke; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Anne Elizabeth Glassgow; Yamile Molina; Sage Kim; Richard T Campbell; Julie Darnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2018-06-15
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: Simon J Craddock Lee; Heidi A Hamann; Travis Browning; Noel O Santini; Suhny Abbara; David S Balis; Hsienchang Chiu; Brett A Moran; Molly McGuire; David E Gerber Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2019-08-31
Authors: Beti Thompson; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Electra D Paskett; James L Fisher; Ryan D Baltic; Chasity M Washington Journal: Curr Breast Cancer Rep Date: 2018-08-29