Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the 5-year overall survival of patients with resectable cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cervical cancer is a global health challenge in women. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a recent prospect for alternative cervical cancer treatments. This study investigated the efficacy of NACT against resectable cervical cancer based on the medium and long-term survival of patients with the disease. We searched through PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library for relevant reports published by June 2020. The primary outcomes were 3-year and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with resectable cervical cancer. Overall, 22 publications encompassing 5627 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We found NACT not to affect both 3-year PFS and OS as well as 5-year PFS of patients with resectable cervical cancer. However, NACT significantly improves the 5-year OS of patients with resectable cervical cancer (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.94, p = 0.013). Subgroup analysis (RCTs, non-RCTs, NACT + surgery + AT vs. surgery + AT, NACT + surgery + AT vs. CCRT/RT/CRT) further revealed NACT had no significant effect on 5-year PFS of patients with resectable cervical cancer, converse to the 5-year OS subgroup analysis, which validated the beneficial effect of NACT in patients with resectable cervical cancer. In addition, the effect of NACT was most significant in the non-RCTs subgroup (p = 0.012). NACT may improve the long-term prognosis of patients with resectable cervical cancer. However, further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to validate this finding.     

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.