Ketra Rice1, Lindsay Gressard1, Amy DeGroff1, Joanne Gersten2, Janene Robie2, Steven Leadbetter1, Rebecca Glover-Kudon1, Lynn Butterly2,3. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Department of Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate uniformly successful results from a statewide program of patient navigation (PN) for colonoscopy, this comparison study evaluated the effectiveness of the PN intervention by comparing outcomes for navigated versus non-navigated patients in one of the community health clinics included in the statewide program. Outcomes measured included screening completion, adequacy of bowel preparation, missed appointments and cancellations, communication of test results, and consistency of follow-up recommendations with clinical guidelines. METHODS: The authors compared a subset of 131 patients who were navigated to a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a similar subset of 75 non-navigated patients at one endoscopy clinic. The prevalence and prevalence odds ratios were computed to measure the association between PN and each study outcome measure. RESULTS: Patients in the PN intervention group were 11.2 times more likely to complete colonoscopy than control patients (96.2% vs 69.3%; P<.001), and were 5.9 times more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (P =.010). In addition, intervention patients had no missed appointments compared with 15.6% of control patients, and were 24.8 times more likely to not have a cancellation <24 hours before their appointment (P<.001). All navigated patients and their primary care providers received test results, and all follow-up recommendations were consistent with clinical guidelines compared with 82.4% of patients in the control group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: PN appears to be effective for improving colonoscopy screening completion and quality in the disparate populations most in need of intervention. To the best of our knowledge, the results of the current study demonstrate some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of PN to date, and highlight its value for public health. Cancer 2017;123:3356-66.
BACKGROUND: To investigate uniformly successful results from a statewide program of patient navigation (PN) for colonoscopy, this comparison study evaluated the effectiveness of the PN intervention by comparing outcomes for navigated versus non-navigated patients in one of the community health clinics included in the statewide program. Outcomes measured included screening completion, adequacy of bowel preparation, missed appointments and cancellations, communication of test results, and consistency of follow-up recommendations with clinical guidelines. METHODS: The authors compared a subset of 131 patients who were navigated to a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a similar subset of 75 non-navigated patients at one endoscopy clinic. The prevalence and prevalence odds ratios were computed to measure the association between PN and each study outcome measure. RESULTS:Patients in the PN intervention group were 11.2 times more likely to complete colonoscopy than control patients (96.2% vs 69.3%; P<.001), and were 5.9 times more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (P =.010). In addition, intervention patients had no missed appointments compared with 15.6% of control patients, and were 24.8 times more likely to not have a cancellation <24 hours before their appointment (P<.001). All navigated patients and their primary care providers received test results, and all follow-up recommendations were consistent with clinical guidelines compared with 82.4% of patients in the control group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: PN appears to be effective for improving colonoscopy screening completion and quality in the disparate populations most in need of intervention. To the best of our knowledge, the results of the current study demonstrate some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of PN to date, and highlight its value for public health. Cancer 2017;123:3356-66.
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Kathleen A Cronin; Nancy Breen; William R Waldron; Anita H Ambs; Marion R Nadel Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Jennifer Murillo; Sandra Lisboa; A Naomie Casimir; Lisa Valley-Shah; Karen M Emmons; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-05-23
Authors: Idris Guessous; Chiranjeev Dash; Pauline Lapin; Mary Doroshenk; Robert A Smith; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Roy C Baron; Barbara K Rimer; Rosalind A Breslow; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Stephanie Melillo; Nancy Habarta; Geetika P Kalra; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Katherine M Wilson; Nancy C Lee; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Steven S Coughlin; Peter A Briss Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Karen E Lasser; Jennifer Murillo; Elizabeth Medlin; Sandra Lisboa; Lisa Valley-Shah; Robert H Fletcher; Karen M Emmons; John Z Ayanian Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Eric S Johnson; Michael C Leo; Jennifer L Schneider; David Smith; Raj Mummadi; Amanda F Petrik; Jamie H Thompson; Ricardo Jimenez Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-12-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Melinda M Davis; Jennifer L Schneider; Rose Gunn; Jennifer S Rivelli; Katherine A Vaughn; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Andreea M Rawlings; Amanda F Petrik; Matthew Slaughter; Eric S Johnson; Peggy A Hannon; Allison Cole; Thuy Vu; Rajasekhara R Mummadi Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Lynn M Yee; Brittney Williams; Hannah M Green; Viridiana Carmona-Barrera; Laura Diaz; Ka'Derricka Davis; Michelle A Kominiarek; Joe Feinglass; Chloe A Zera; William A Grobman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Kelsey M Leach; Marni E Granzow; Madyson L Popalis; Kelsey C Stoltzfus; Jennifer L Moss Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Elizabeth A Beverly; Jane Hamel-Lambert; Laura L Jensen; Sue Meeks; Anne Rubin Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Lesley M McGregor; Hanna Skrobanski; Mary Ritchie; Lindy Berkman; Hayley Miller; Madeleine Freeman; Nishma Patel; Stephen Morris; Colin Rees; Christian von Wagner Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 2.692