Quantification of Postdiagnosis Cancer Patient Navigation.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Sarojini Posani, Ursula J Burnette, Shearwood McClelland
{"title":"Quantification of Postdiagnosis Cancer Patient Navigation.","authors":"Sarojini Posani, Ursula J Burnette, Shearwood McClelland","doi":"10.1097/COC.0000000000001225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patient navigation is a key component in achieving optimal cancer care outcomes. While a vast amount of literature suggests its clear benefits in cancer care, limited objective data exists regarding navigation metrics, specifically the number of navigator-patient contacts and time spent with patients. This study attempts to attain findings from the published literature to better understand navigation metrics to achieve optimal cancer care outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic PubMed search was performed in April 2025 focusing on cancer patient navigation, with the term \"patient navigation or navigator in postdiagnosis cancer care-contact metrics.\" Important metrics analysed were the median number of navigator-patient contacts, the median time spent per patient, the most common barriers addressed, and their respective improved outcomes. These metrics were then compared with results from the ongoing Phase I Navigator-Assisted Hypofractionation (NAVAH) trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05978232).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7 peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. The number of patient-navigator contacts widely ranged from 1 to 119; the average being 13.4 (∼0.3 times/mo, compared with 2 times/mo in NAVAH). The median time spent per patient varied from 40 minutes to over 10 hours (compared with 20 mins/encounter in NAVAH). The most commonly discussed topic was financial assistance, which is consistent with NAVAH findings. Improved outcomes were significantly reduced treatment interruption days and securing early specialist appointments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As previously published data depicted wide variability, it highlights the need for standardized data collection and reporting practices, as such quantitative data can facilitate the evolution of patient navigation in achieving improved cancer care outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50812,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patient navigation is a key component in achieving optimal cancer care outcomes. While a vast amount of literature suggests its clear benefits in cancer care, limited objective data exists regarding navigation metrics, specifically the number of navigator-patient contacts and time spent with patients. This study attempts to attain findings from the published literature to better understand navigation metrics to achieve optimal cancer care outcomes.

Methods: A systematic PubMed search was performed in April 2025 focusing on cancer patient navigation, with the term "patient navigation or navigator in postdiagnosis cancer care-contact metrics." Important metrics analysed were the median number of navigator-patient contacts, the median time spent per patient, the most common barriers addressed, and their respective improved outcomes. These metrics were then compared with results from the ongoing Phase I Navigator-Assisted Hypofractionation (NAVAH) trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05978232).

Results: A total of 7 peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. The number of patient-navigator contacts widely ranged from 1 to 119; the average being 13.4 (∼0.3 times/mo, compared with 2 times/mo in NAVAH). The median time spent per patient varied from 40 minutes to over 10 hours (compared with 20 mins/encounter in NAVAH). The most commonly discussed topic was financial assistance, which is consistent with NAVAH findings. Improved outcomes were significantly reduced treatment interruption days and securing early specialist appointments.

Conclusions: As previously published data depicted wide variability, it highlights the need for standardized data collection and reporting practices, as such quantitative data can facilitate the evolution of patient navigation in achieving improved cancer care outcomes.

癌症患者诊断后导航的量化。
目的:患者导航是实现最佳癌症治疗结果的关键组成部分。虽然大量的文献表明它在癌症治疗中有明显的好处,但关于导航指标的客观数据有限,特别是导航员与患者接触的数量和与患者相处的时间。本研究试图从已发表的文献中获得研究结果,以更好地理解导航指标,以实现最佳的癌症治疗结果。方法:在2025年4月进行了一次系统的PubMed检索,重点是癌症患者导航,术语为“诊断后癌症护理接触指标中的患者导航或导航”。分析的重要指标包括导航员与患者接触的中位数、每位患者花费的中位数时间、解决的最常见障碍以及各自改善的结果。然后将这些指标与正在进行的I期导航辅助分割(NAVAH)试验的结果进行比较(clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05978232)。结果:共有7项同行评议研究符合纳入标准。患者导航员接触人数从1到119人不等;平均为13.4次(~ 0.3次/月,而NAVAH为2次/月)。每位患者的中位时间从40分钟到10小时以上不等(相比之下,NAVAH患者为20分钟/次)。最常讨论的话题是经济援助,这与NAVAH的调查结果一致。改善的结果显著减少了治疗中断天数,并确保了早期的专家预约。结论:由于先前发表的数据描述了广泛的可变性,它强调了标准化数据收集和报告实践的必要性,因为这种定量数据可以促进患者导航的演变,以实现改善的癌症治疗结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
130
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​American Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal for cancer surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, and pediatric oncologists. The emphasis of AJCO is on combined modality multidisciplinary loco-regional management of cancer. The journal also gives emphasis to translational research, outcome studies, and cost utility analyses, and includes opinion pieces and review articles. The editorial board includes a large number of distinguished surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, pediatric oncologists, and others who are internationally recognized for expertise in their fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信