Lu Tian1,2,3,4,5, Lei Huang6, Jie Liu7, Xia Li5, Aisha Ajmal8, Maryam Ajmal9, Yunjin Yao10, Li Tian11,12,13,14. 1. The Third Central Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300170, China. 2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin, China. 3. Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China. 4. Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin, China. 5. The 3rd Department of Breast Cancer, China Tianjin Breast Cancer Prevention, Treatment and Research Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Tianjin, China. 6. Department of Heart Center, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin, 300170, People's Republic of China. 7. Department of Clinical Laboratory, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin, 300170, China. 8. St George's Hospital Medical School, St George's, University of London, London, SW17 0RE, UK. 9. GKT School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 1UL, UK. maryam.ajmal@kcl.ac.uk. 10. Department of Thyroid Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 3110000419@zju.edu.cn. 11. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Tianjin, China. szxhlb@126.com. 12. Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China. szxhlb@126.com. 13. Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Tianjin, China. szxhlb@126.com. 14. The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, 83 Jintang Road, Hedong District, Tianjin, 300170, China. szxhlb@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unsatisfactory cancer screening results are often associated with poor prognosis. This study synthesized the literatures addressing the impact of patient navigation (PN) interventions on population-based breast cancer screening promotion to identify characteristics of the model for addressing breast cancer disparities. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Registry from inception to 31 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO: CRD42021246890). We double blindly abstracted data and assessed study quality. We assessed screening completion rates and diagnostic resolution using random-effects models between those receiving navigation and controls. RESULTS: Of 236 abstracts identified, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Nine of the papers evaluated the impact of PN on breast screening, while the other six were on the resolution of abnormal screening results. Compared to the non-PN group, PN improved screening completion (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.8]) and shortened the time to diagnosis (WMD: - 9.90 days, 95% CI: - 19.09 to - 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Patient navigation improves breast cancer screening rates but does not improve resolution of abnormal tests.
BACKGROUND: Unsatisfactory cancer screening results are often associated with poor prognosis. This study synthesized the literatures addressing the impact of patient navigation (PN) interventions on population-based breast cancer screening promotion to identify characteristics of the model for addressing breast cancer disparities. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Registry from inception to 31 December 2020 for randomized controlled trials (PROSPERO: CRD42021246890). We double blindly abstracted data and assessed study quality. We assessed screening completion rates and diagnostic resolution using random-effects models between those receiving navigation and controls. RESULTS: Of 236 abstracts identified, 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Nine of the papers evaluated the impact of PN on breast screening, while the other six were on the resolution of abnormal screening results. Compared to the non-PN group, PN improved screening completion (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.4-2.8]) and shortened the time to diagnosis (WMD: - 9.90 days, 95% CI: - 19.09 to - 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Patient navigation improves breast cancer screening rates but does not improve resolution of abnormal tests.
Authors: Kathryn L Braun; William L Thomas; Jermy-Leigh B Domingo; Amanda L Allison; Avette Ponce; P Haunani Kamakana; Sandra S Brazzel; N Emmett Aluli; JoAnn U Tsark Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Benjamin O Anderson; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Martha L Hare; Nancy LaVerda; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul Levine; David M Murray; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim; Melissa Simon; Frederick R Snyder; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth M Whitley; Paul Winters; Gregory S Young; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 13.506
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: 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: Steven J Atlas; Adrian H Zai; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Sanja Percac-Lima; Douglas E Levy; Henry C Chueh; Richard W Grant Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657