Heidi D Nelson1,2, Amy Cantor3,4, Jesse Wagner3, Rebecca Jungbauer3, Rongwei Fu3,5, Karli Kondo6,7, Lucy Stillman3, Ana Quiñones5. 1. Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. nelsonh@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. nelsonh@ohsu.edu. 3. Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 5. School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Evidence-based Synthesis Program, Portland VA Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA. 7. Office of Research Integrity, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effectiveness of patient navigation to increase screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in populations adversely affected by health care disparities. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through English-language searches of Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, SocINDEX, and Veterans Affairs Health Services database (January 1, 1996, to July 5, 2019) and manual review of reference lists. Randomized trials and observational studies of relevant populations that evaluated the effectiveness of patient navigation on screening rates for colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer compared with usual or alternative care comparison groups were included. Two investigators independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality and applicability using criteria adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Results were combined using profile likelihood random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria (28 colorectal, 11 breast, 4 cervical cancers including 3 trials with multiple cancer types). Screening rates were higher with patient navigation for colorectal cancer overall (risk ratio [RR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42 to 1.92; I2 = 93.7%; 22 trials) and by type of test (fecal occult blood or immunohistochemistry testing [RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.15; I2 = 80.5%; 6 trials]; colonoscopy/endoscopy [RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.56; I2 = 94.6%; 6 trials]). Screening was also higher with navigation for breast cancer (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; I2 = 98.6%; 10 trials) and cervical cancer (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19; based on the largest trial). The high heterogeneity of cervical cancer studies prohibited meta-analysis. Results were similar for colorectal and breast cancer regardless of prior adherence to screening guidelines, follow-up time, and study quality. CONCLUSIONS: In populations adversely affected by disparities, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening rates were higher in patients provided navigation services. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018109263.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effectiveness of patient navigation to increase screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in populations adversely affected by health care disparities. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through English-language searches of Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, SocINDEX, and Veterans Affairs Health Services database (January 1, 1996, to July 5, 2019) and manual review of reference lists. Randomized trials and observational studies of relevant populations that evaluated the effectiveness of patient navigation on screening rates for colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer compared with usual or alternative care comparison groups were included. Two investigators independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality and applicability using criteria adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Results were combined using profile likelihood random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria (28 colorectal, 11 breast, 4 cervical cancers including 3 trials with multiple cancer types). Screening rates were higher with patient navigation for colorectal cancer overall (risk ratio [RR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42 to 1.92; I2 = 93.7%; 22 trials) and by type of test (fecal occult blood or immunohistochemistry testing [RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.15; I2 = 80.5%; 6 trials]; colonoscopy/endoscopy [RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.56; I2 = 94.6%; 6 trials]). Screening was also higher with navigation for breast cancer (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; I2 = 98.6%; 10 trials) and cervical cancer (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19; based on the largest trial). The high heterogeneity of cervical cancer studies prohibited meta-analysis. Results were similar for colorectal and breast cancer regardless of prior adherence to screening guidelines, follow-up time, and study quality. CONCLUSIONS: In populations adversely affected by disparities, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening rates were higher in patients provided navigation services. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018109263.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer screening; health disparity; health equity; patient navigation; prevention
Authors: Jessie Kimbrough Marshall; Olive M Mbah; Jean G Ford; Darcy Phelan-Emrick; Saifuddin Ahmed; Lee Bone; Jennifer Wenzel; Gary R Shapiro; Mollie Howerton; Lawrence Johnson; Qiana Brown; Altovise Ewing; Craig Evan Pollack Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amy DeGroff; Paul C Schroy; Kerry Grace Morrissey; Beth Slotman; Elizabeth A Rohan; James Bethel; Jennifer Murillo; Weijia Ren; Shelley Niwa; Steven Leadbetter; Djenaba Joseph Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Lindsay M Sabik; Natasha K Stout; Michael T Halpern; Joseph Lipscomb; Scott Ramsey; Debra P Ritzwoller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Matthew A Vargas; Olayemi O Matthew; Deloria R Jackson; Tifini Austin; Rima Tawk; Kristin Wallace; Clement K Gwede; John S Luque Journal: Cancer Health Disparities Date: 2021
Authors: Lu Tian; Lei Huang; Jie Liu; Xia Li; Aisha Ajmal; Maryam Ajmal; Yunjin Yao; Li Tian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Eduardo J Santiago-Rodríguez; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Jacqueline M Torres; Urmimala Sarkar; Robert A Hiatt Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 2.732