Kristen J Wells1,2, Kevin Campbell1, Ambuj Kumar3, Tatianna Clark1, Pascal Jean-Pierre4,5. 1. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. San Diego Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Florida State University College of Medicine, 1115 W. Call Street, Suite G101E, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4300, USA. Pascal.Jean-Pierre@med.fsu.edu. 5. Cancer Neurocognitive Translational Research Laboratory, Tallahassee, FL, USA. Pascal.Jean-Pierre@med.fsu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of healthcare coordination designed to reduce barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews evaluating whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: (1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and (2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or non-RCT approach. Standardized forms were used to abstract data from studies. These data were evaluated for methodological quality, summarized qualitatively, and synthesized under a random effects model. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 831 citations. Nine met inclusion criteria. Five had adequate data (1 RCT and 4 non-RCTs) to include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of included studies ranged from weak to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCTs showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.79, 2.80, p < 0.001). Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (standardized mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.80, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Although PN has been widely implemented to improve cancer care, high-quality studies are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care.
PURPOSE:Patient navigation (PN) is a model of healthcare coordination designed to reduce barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews evaluating whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: (1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and (2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or non-RCT approach. Standardized forms were used to abstract data from studies. These data were evaluated for methodological quality, summarized qualitatively, and synthesized under a random effects model. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 831 citations. Nine met inclusion criteria. Five had adequate data (1 RCT and 4 non-RCTs) to include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of included studies ranged from weak to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCTs showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.79, 2.80, p < 0.001). Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (standardized mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.80, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Although PN has been widely implemented to improve cancer care, high-quality studies are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer early detection; Meta-analysis; Patient navigation; Patient satisfaction; Systematic review
Authors: Kathryn L Braun; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Alan E C Holden; Linda Burhansstipanov; Jacqueline H Tran; Brenda F Seals; Giselle Corbie-Smith; JoAnn U Tsark; Lisa Harjo; Mary Anne Foo; Amelie G Ramirez Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2012-02
Authors: Douglas M Post; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Gregory S Young; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jesse J Plascak; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.037
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: 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: A Brédart; V Mignot; A Rousseau; S Dolbeault; N Beauloye; V Adam; C Elie; I Léonard; B Asselain; T Conroy Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-08
Authors: Perla Chebli; Katherine Reyes; Naoko Muramatsu; Karriem Watson; Marian Fitzgibbon; Sarah Abboud; Yamilé Molina Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laura Catherine Edney; Jacqueline Roseleur; Jodi Gray; Bogda Koczwara; Jonathan Karnon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Sharon M Bigelow; Elizabeth Hart; Tina Shaban; Preeyanka Rao; Ali Ahmad Khan; Marianne Baskaron; Pamela Baker; Todd A Schwartz; Deborah K Mayer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maija Reblin; Kristen J Wells; Amy Otto; Rachael McCormick; Laura Rodriguez; Kerie Walters; Steven K Sutton; Bradley Zebrack; Peter Forsyth; Margaret M Byrne Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Maija Reblin; Heraldo D'Almeida; Veronica Barrios-Monroy; Rachael McCormick; Laura Rodriguez; Kerie Walters; Steven K Sutton; Bradley Zebrack; Peter Forsyth; Margaret M Byrne; Kristen J Wells Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 3.359