Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention involving trained healthcare workers who assist patients in assessing and mitigating personal and environmental factors to promote healthy behaviors. The purpose of this research is to systematically assess the efficacy of patient navigation and similar programs to improve diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting medically underserved populations. A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL to identify potential studies. Eligible studies were those containing original peer-reviewed research reports in English on patient navigation, community health workers, vulnerable and underserved populations, and healthcare disparity. Specific outcomes regarding patient navigator including the effect of the intervention on definitive diagnosis and effect on initiation of treatment were extracted from each study. The search produced 1428 articles, and 16 were included for review. All studies involved patient navigation in the field of oncology in underserved populations. Timing of initial contact with a patient navigator after diagnostic or screening testing is correlated to the effectiveness of the navigator intervention. The majority of the studies reported significantly shorter time intervals to diagnosis and to treatment with patient navigation. Patient navigation expedites oncologic diagnosis and treatment of patients in underserved populations. This intervention is more efficacious when utilized shortly after screening or diagnostic testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martin LR, Williams SL, Haskard KB, DiMatteo MR (2005) The challenge of patient adherence. Ther Clin Risk Manag 1(3):189–199

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferrante JM, Chen P, Kim S (2008) The effect of patient navigation on time to diagnosis, anxiety, and satisfaction in urban minority women with abnormal mammograms: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 85(1):114–124. doi:10.1007/s11524-007-9228-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Battaglia TA, Bak S, Heeren T et al (2012) Boston Patient Navigation Research Program: the impact of navigation on time to diagnostic resolution after abnormal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1645–1654. doi:10.1158/1055- 9965.EPI-12-0532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Freeman HP, Rodriguez RL (2011) The history and principles of patient navigation. Cancer 117(15 0):3539–3542. doi:10.1002/cncr.26262

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J 338:b2535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—levels of evidence (2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Retrieved May 4, 2016

  7. Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, McCarthy AM, Piawah S, Atlas SJ (2015) Patient navigation to improve follow-up of abnormal mammograms among disadvantaged women. J Women’s Health 24(2):138–143. doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee J, Fulp W, Wells KJ, Meade CD, Calcano E, Roetzheim R (2014) Effect of patient navigation on time to diagnostic resolution among patients with colorectal cancer-related abnormalities. J Canc Educ 29:144–150. doi:10.1007/s13187-013-0561-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Freund KM, Battaglia TA, Calhoun E et al (2014) Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the Patient Navigation Research Program. JNCI 106(6). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju115

  10. Bensink ME, Ramsey SD, Battaglia T et al (2014) Costs and outcomes evaluation of patient navigation after abnormal cancer screening. Cancer:570–578. doi:10.1002/cncr.28438

  11. Lee J, Fulp W, Wells KJ, Meade CD, Calcano E, Roetzheim R (2013) Patient navigation and time to diagnostic resolution: results for a cluster randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of patient navigation among patients with breast cancer screening abnormalities, Tampa, FL. PLoS One 8(9):e74542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dudley DJ, Drake J, Quinlan J et al (2012) Beneficial effects of a combined navigator/promotora approach for Hispanic women diagnosed with breast abnormalities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1639–1644. doi:10.1158/1055- 9965.EPI-12-0538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Markossian TW, Darnell JS, Calhoun EA (2012) Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1691–1700. doi:10.1158/1055- 9965.EPI-12-0535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paskett E, Katz ML, Douglas MP et al (2012) The ohio Patient Navigation Research Program (OPNRP): does the American Cancer Society patient navigation model improve time to resolution among patients with abnormal screening tests? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1620–1628. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Raich PC, Whitley EM, Thorland W, Valverde P, Fairclough D (2012) Patient navigation improves cancer diagnostic resolution: an individually randomized clinical trial in an underserved population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1629–1638. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wells KJ, Lee J, Calcano E et al (2012) A cluster randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of patient navigation in improving quality of diagnostic care for patients with breast or colorectal cancer abnormalities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 21(10):1664–1672. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ell K, Vourlekis B, Lee P, Xie B (2007) Patient navigation and case management following an abnormal mammogram: a randomized clinical trial. Prev Med 44:26–33. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ell K, Vourlekis B, Muderspach L et al (2002) Abnormal cervical screen follow-up among low-income Latinas: project safe. J Women’s Health Gend-Based Med 11(7):639–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramirez A, Perez-Stable E, Penedo F et al (2014) Reducing time-to-treatment in underserved Latinas with breast cancer. Cancer:752–760. doi:10.1002/cncr.28450

  20. Ell K, Padgett D, Vourlekis B et al (2002) Abnormal mammogram follow-up: a pilot study in women with low income. Cancer Pract 10(3):130–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Huo Q, Cai C, Zhang Y et al (2015) Delay in diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic breast cancer in China. Ann Surg Oncol 22(3):883–888. doi:10.1245/s10434-014-4076-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Redaniel MT, Martin RM, Blazeby JM, Wade J, Jeffreys M (2014) The association of time between diagnosis and major resection with poorer colorectal cancer survival: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer 14:642. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-642

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dolly D, Mihai A, Rimel BJ et al (2016) A delay from diagnosis to treatment is associated with decreased overall survival for patients with endometrial cancer. Front Oncol 12(6):31. doi:10.3389/fonc.2016.00031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gilbert JE, Green E, Lankshear S et al (2011) Nurses as patient navigators in cancer diagnosis: review, consultation and model design. Eur J Cancer Care 20:228–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and the University of Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UL1TR000117) (TS) and the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (1K23DC014074) (MLB). MLB is a member of the Surgical Advisory Board of Med El Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St, Rm C-236, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA

    Matthew L. Bush & Michael R. Kaufman

  2. College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Taylor Shackleford

Authors
  1. Matthew L. Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael R. Kaufman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor Shackleford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew L. Bush.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bush, M.L., Kaufman, M.R. & Shackleford, T. Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers. J Canc Educ 33, 1222–1229 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1235-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1235-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation