Kristen J. Wells

First implemented in 1990, patient navigation interventions are emerging today as an approach to reduce cancer disparities. However, there is lack of consensus about how patient navigation is defined, what patient navigators do, and what their qualifications should be. Little is known about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation. For this review, the authors conducted a qualitative synthesis of published literature on cancer patient navigation. By using the keywords 'navigator' or 'navigation' and 'cancer,' 45 articles were identified in the PubMed database and from reference searches that were published or in press through October 2007. Sixteen studies provided data on the efficacy of navigation in improving timeliness and receipt of cancer screening, diagnostic follow-up care, and treatment. Patient navigation services were defined and differentiated from other outreach services. Overall, there was evidence of some degree of efficacy for patient navigation in increasing participation in cancer screening and adherence to diagnostic follow-up care after the detection of an abnormality. The reported increases in screening ranged from 10.8% to 17.1%, and increases in adherence to diagnostic follow-up care ranged from 21% to 29.2% compared with control patients. There was less evidence regarding the efficacy of patient navigation in reducing either late-stage cancer diagnosis or delays in the initiation of cancer treatment or improving outcomes during cancer survivorship. There were methodological limitations in most studies, such as a lack of control groups, small sample sizes, and contamination with other interventions. Although cancer-related patient navigation interventions are being adopted increasingly across the United States and Canada, further research will be necessary to evaluate their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in improving cancer care.

Although patient navigation was introduced 2 decades ago, there remains a lack of consensus regarding its definition, the necessary qualifications of patient navigators, and its impact on the continuum of cancer care. This review provides an update to the 2008 review by Wells et al on patient navigation. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the number of published studies dealing with cancer patient navigation. The authors of the current review conducted a search by using the keywords "navigation" or "navigator" and "cancer." Thirty-three articles published from November 2007 through July 2010 met the search criteria. Consistent with the prior review, there is building evidence of some degree of efficacy of patient navigation in terms of increasing cancer screening rates. However, there is less recent evidence concerning the benefit of patient navigation with regard to diagnostic follow-up and in the treatment setting, and a paucity of research focusing on patient navigation in cancer survivorship remains. Methodological limitations were noted in many studies, including small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. As patient navigation programs continue to develop across North America and beyond, further research will be required to determine the efficacy of cancer patient navigation across all aspects of the cancer care continuum.

BACKGROUND: Community health workers (CHW) are lay individuals who are trained to serve as liaisons between members of their communities and health care providers and services. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence from all prospective controlled studies on effectiveness of CHW programs in improving screening mammography rates. Studies reported in English and conducted in the United States were included if they: (i) evaluated a CHW intervention designed to increase screening mammography rates in women 40 years of age or older without a history of breast cancer; (ii) were a randomized controlled trial (RCT), case-controlled study, or quasi-experimental study; and (iii) evaluated a CHW intervention outside of a hospital setting. RESULTS: Participation in a CHW intervention was associated with a statistically significant increase in receipt of screening mammography [risk ratio (RR): 1.06 (favoring intervention); 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, P = 0.003]. The effect remained when pooled data from only RCTs were included in meta-analysis (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03-1.12, P = 0.0005) but was not present using pooled data from only quasi-experimental studies (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.18, P = 0.71). In RCTs, participants recruited from medical settings (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.09-1.82, P = 0.008), programs conducted in urban settings (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.39, P = 0.001), and programs where CHWs were matched to intervention participants on race or ethnicity (RR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.29-1.93, P = 0.0001) showed stronger effects on increasing mammography screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: CHW interventions are effective for increasing screening mammography in certain settings and populations. IMPACT: CHW interventions are especially associated with improvements in rate of screening mammography in medical settings, urban settings, and in participants who are racially or ethnically concordant with the CHW.