Search

Purpose: Despite growing popularity of patient navigation (PN) as a means to improve cancer care quality and reduce cancer-related disparities, there are few well-designed controlled trials assessing the impact of PN on patient outcomes like satisfaction with care. The present controlled study examined effect of PN on satisfaction with cancer-related care., Methods: Patients who presented with a symptom or abnormal screening test (n = 1788) or definitive diagnosis (n = 445) of breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate cancer from eight Patient Navigator Research Program sites were included in one of two groups: intervention (PN) or comparison (usual care or usual care plus cancer educational materials). Trained patient navigators met with intervention group participants to help them assess and identify resources to address barriers to cancer diagnostic or treatment care. Using a validated instrument, we assessed participants' satisfaction with their cancer diagnostic or treatment care up to 3 months after diagnostic resolution of a cancer-related abnormality or within 3 months of initiation of cancer treatment., Results: Overall, patients reported high satisfaction with diagnostic care and cancer treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between PN and control groups in satisfaction with cancer-related care (p > 0.05). Hispanic and African American participants were less likely to report high satisfaction with cancer care when compared to White patients. Middle-aged participants with higher education, higher household income, private insurance, owning their own home, working full-time, and those whose primary language is English had higher satisfaction with cancer-related diagnostic care., Conclusions: PN had no statistically significant effect on patients' satisfaction with cancer-related care. Further research is needed to define the patient populations who might benefit from PN, content of PN that is most useful, and services that might enhance PN., Trial Registrations: clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00613275 , NCT00496678 , NCT00375024 , NCT01569672.

Purpose: Patient navigation is increasingly employed to guide patients through cancer treatment. We assessed the elements of navigation that promoted patients' involvement in treatment among patients with breast and colorectal cancer that participated in a navigation study., Methods: We conducted qualitative analysis of 28 audiotaped and transcribed semi-structured interviews of navigated and unnavigated cancer patients., Results: Themes included feeling emotionally and cognitively overwhelmed and desire for a strong patient-navigator partnership. Both participants who were navigated and those who were not felt that navigation did or could help address their emotional, informational, and communicational needs. The benefits of logistical support were cited less often., Conclusions: Findings underscore the salience of personal relationships between patients and navigators in meeting patients' emotional and informational needs.

Background: Patient navigation is a promising intervention to address cancer disparities but requires a multisite controlled trial to assess its effectiveness., Methods: The Patient Navigation Research Program compared patient navigation with usual care on time to diagnosis or treatment for participants with breast, cervical, colorectal, or prostate screening abnormalities and/or cancers between 2007 and 2010. Patient navigators developed individualized strategies to address barriers to care, with the focus on preventing delays in care. To assess timeliness of diagnostic resolution, we conducted a meta-analysis of center- and cancer-specific adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing patient navigation vs usual care. To assess initiation of cancer therapy, we calculated a single aHR, pooling data across all centers and cancer types. We conducted a metaregression to evaluate variability across centers. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: The 10521 participants with abnormal screening tests and 2105 with a cancer or precancer diagnosis were predominantly from racial/ethnic minority groups (73%) and publically insured (40%) or uninsured (31%). There was no benefit during the first 90 days of care, but a benefit of navigation was seen from 91 to 365 days for both diagnostic resolution (aHR = 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.84; P < .001)) and treatment initiation (aHR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.86; P < .007). Metaregression revealed that navigation had its greatest benefits within centers with the greatest delays in follow-up under usual care., Conclusions: Patient navigation demonstrated a moderate benefit in improving timely cancer care. These results support adoption of patient navigation in settings that serve populations at risk of being lost to follow-up., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Patient navigation has emerged as a promising strategy for addressing racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer-related care. However, little is known about the impact of patients' perception of the quality of navigation on patient outcomes. We examined the impact of better-rated navigators on patients' satisfaction with cancer-related care. The sample included 1,593 adults (85.8% with abnormal cancer screening and 14.2% with confirmed cancer diagnosis) who received patient navigation. We defined better-rated navigators as those scoring above the first quartile of mean scores on the Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator scale. We defined patient satisfaction based on scores above or below the median of the Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC) scale. We controlled for patient and site characteristics using backward selection logistic regression analyses. Among patients with abnormal screening, having a better-rated navigator was associated with higher score on the PSCC (p < 0.05). After controlling for other bivariate predictors of satisfaction (e.g., age, race, income, and household size), navigation by better-rated navigators was associated with a greater likelihood of having higher patient satisfaction [odds ratio (OR), 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.82]. Similar findings between better-rated navigators and score on the PSCC were found for participants with diagnosed cancer (OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.56-6.0). Patients navigated by better-rated navigators reported higher satisfaction with their cancer-related care.

Background: Patient navigation is a promising intervention to ameliorate cancer health disparities. This study objective was to measure patient navigation effects on cancer-specific quality of life (QOL) among patients with newly diagnosed cancer., Methods: A randomized controlled trial of patient navigation was conducted in Rochester, NY. Patients with breast cancer and colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive a patient navigation intervention or usual care. QOL was measured at baseline and four subsequent time points, using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-B, FACT-C) instruments., Results: Among 319 randomized patients (165 patient navigation, 154 control), median age was 57 years and 32.5% were from minority race/ethnicity groups. Patient navigation and control groups were comparable on baseline factors, except home ownership versus renting (more home ownership among controls, P = 0.05) and race (more whites among controls, P = 0.05). Total and subscale FACT scores did not differ between groups when analyzed as a change from baseline to 3 months, or at various time points. The emotional well-being subscale change from baseline approached significance (better change among patient navigation group, P = 0.05). Time trends of QOL measures did not differ significantly between groups. Adjustment for baseline patient factors did not reveal a benefit of patient navigation on QOL., Conclusions: In this randomized trial of patient navigation, there was no statistically significant effect on disease-specific QOL., Impact: These results suggest that patient navigation may not affect QOL during cancer treatment, that social/medical support are adequate in this study's setting, or that the trial failed to target patients likely to experience QOL benefit from patient navigation., (2012 AACR)

Background: There is limited high-quality evidence about the impact of patient navigation (PN) on outcomes for patients with diagnosed cancer., Methods: We pooled data from two sites from the national Patient Navigation Research Program. Patients (n = 438) with newly diagnosed breast (n = 353) or colorectal cancer (n = 85) were randomized to PN or usual care. Trained lay navigators met with patients randomized to PN to help them assess treatment barriers and identify resources to overcome barriers. We used intent-to-treat analysis to assess time to completion of primary treatment, psychologic distress (impact of events scale), and satisfaction (patient satisfaction with cancer-related care) within 3 months after initiation of cancer treatment., Results: The sample was predominantly middle-aged (mean age = 57) and female (90%); 44% were race-ethnic minorities (44%), 46% reported lower education levels, 18% were uninsured, and 9% reported a non-English primary language. The randomized groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. Primary analysis showed no statistically significant group differences in time to completion of primary cancer treatment, satisfaction with cancer-related care, or psychologic distress. Subgroup analysis showed that socially disadvantaged patients (i.e., uninsured, low English proficiency, and non-English primary language) who received PN reported higher satisfaction than those receiving usual care (all P < 0.05). Navigated patients living alone reported greater distress than those receiving usual care., Conclusions: Although the primary analysis showed no overall benefit, the subgroup analysis suggests that PN may improve satisfaction with care for certain disadvantaged individuals., Impact: PN for cancer patients may not necessarily reduce treatment time nor distress., (2012 AACR)

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure of quality of cancer care and 1 of the 4 core study outcomes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program to reduce race/ethnicity-based disparities in cancer care. There is no existing patient satisfaction measure that spans the spectrum of cancer-related care. The objective of this study was to develop a Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure that is relevant to patients receiving diagnostic/therapeutic cancer-related care. METHODS: The authors developed a conceptual framework, an operational definition of Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, and an item pool based on literature review, expert feedback, group discussion, and consensus. The 35-item Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care measure was administered to 891 participants from the multisite NCI-sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted for latent structure analysis. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach coefficient alpha (α). Divergent analysis was performed using correlation analyses between the Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy--Cancer, and demographic variables. RESULTS: The PCA revealed a 1-dimensional measure with items forming a coherent set explaining 62% of the variance in patient satisfaction. Reliability assessment revealed high internal consistency (α ranging from 0.95 to 0.96). The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care demonstrated good face validity, convergent validity, and divergent validity, as indicated by moderate correlations with subscales of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy--Cancer (all P < .01) and nonsignificant correlations with age, primary language, marital status, and scores on the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine Long Form (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Patient Satisfaction With Cancer Care is a valid tool for assessing satisfaction with cancer-related care for this sample. Cancer 2011;117:854-61. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]