Kristen J Wells1,2, Patrick Wightman3, Rosa Cobian Aguilar1, Andrea J Dwyer4, Cristian Garcia-Alcaraz1,2, Elba L Saavedra Ferrer5, Prashanthinie Mohan3, Linda Fleisher6, Elizabeth F Franklin7, Patricia A Valverde8, Elizabeth Calhoun9. 1. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 2. San Diego State University/University of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, California. 3. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 4. University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 5. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Cancer Support Community, Washington, DC. 8. Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 9. University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A nationwide survey was conducted to examine differences between clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators in their service provision, engagement in the cancer care continuum, personal characteristics, and program characteristics. METHODS: Using convenience sampling, 527 oncology navigators participated and completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics, χ2 statistics, and t tests were used to compare nonclinical (eg, community health worker) and clinical (eg, nurse navigators) navigators on the provision of various navigation services, personal characteristics, engagement in the cancer care continuum, and program characteristics. RESULTS: Most participants were clinical navigators (76.1%). Compared to nonclinical navigators, clinical navigators were more likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher (88.6% vs 69.6%, P < .001), be funded by operational budgets (84.4% vs 35.7%, P < .001), and less likely to work at a community-based organization or nonprofit (2.0% vs 36.5%, P < .001). Clinical navigators were more likely to perform basic navigation (P < .001), care coordination (P < .001), treatment support (P < .001), and clinical trial/peer support (P = .005). Clinical navigators were more likely to engage in treatment (P < .001), end-of-life (P < .001), and palliative care (P = .001) navigation. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing indication that clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators perform different functions and work in different settings. Nonclinical navigators may be more likely to face job insecurity because they work in nonprofit organizations and are primarily funded by grants.
BACKGROUND: A nationwide survey was conducted to examine differences between clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators in their service provision, engagement in the cancer care continuum, personal characteristics, and program characteristics. METHODS: Using convenience sampling, 527 oncology navigators participated and completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics, χ2 statistics, and t tests were used to compare nonclinical (eg, community health worker) and clinical (eg, nurse navigators) navigators on the provision of various navigation services, personal characteristics, engagement in the cancer care continuum, and program characteristics. RESULTS: Most participants were clinical navigators (76.1%). Compared to nonclinical navigators, clinical navigators were more likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher (88.6% vs 69.6%, P < .001), be funded by operational budgets (84.4% vs 35.7%, P < .001), and less likely to work at a community-based organization or nonprofit (2.0% vs 36.5%, P < .001). Clinical navigators were more likely to perform basic navigation (P < .001), care coordination (P < .001), treatment support (P < .001), and clinical trial/peer support (P = .005). Clinical navigators were more likely to engage in treatment (P < .001), end-of-life (P < .001), and palliative care (P = .001) navigation. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing indication that clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators perform different functions and work in different settings. Nonclinical navigators may be more likely to face job insecurity because they work in nonprofit organizations and are primarily funded by grants.
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: Patricia A Valverde; Elizabeth Calhoun; Angelina Esparza; Kristen J Wells; Betsy C Risendal Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Kathryn M Garfield; Elizabeth F Franklin; Tracy A Battaglia; Andrea J Dwyer; Karen M Freund; Patrick D Wightman; Elizabeth A Rohan Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Lina Jandorf; Julia L Cooperman; Lauren M Stossel; Steven Itzkowitz; Hayley S Thompson; Cristina Villagra; Linda D Thélémaque; Thomas McGinn; Gary Winkel; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Rachel C Shelton; William Redd Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2013-02-07
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