Evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of cancer patient navigation programs: Conceptual and practical issues

Patient navigators—individuals who assist patients through the healthcare system to improve access to and understanding of their health and healthcare—are increasingly used for underserved individuals at risk for or with cancer. Navigation programs can improve access, but it is unclear whether they improve the efficiency and efficacy of cancer diagnostic and therapeutic services at a reasonable cost, such that they would be considered cost‐effective. In the current study, the authors outline a conceptual model for evaluating the cost‐effectiveness of cancer navigation programs. They describe how this model is being applied to the Patient Navigation Research Program, a multicenter study supported by the National Cancer Institute's Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities. The Patient Navigation Research Program is testing navigation interventions that aim to reduce time to delivery of quality cancer care (noncancer resolution or cancer diagnosis and treatment) after identification of a screening abnormality. Examples of challenges to evaluating cost‐effectiveness of navigation programs include the heterogeneity of navigation programs, the sometimes distant relation between navigation programs and outcome of interest (eg, improving access to prompt diagnostic resolution and life‐years gained), and accounting for factors in underserved populations that may influence both access to services and outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss several strategies for addressing these barriers. Evaluating the costs and impact of navigation will require some novel methods, but will be critical in recommendations concerning dissemination of navigation programs. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

The Role of Patient Navigation on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion and Education: a Review of the Literature

Although the general assumption is that patient navigation helps patients adhere to CRC screening recommendations, concrete evidence for its effectiveness is still currently under investigation. The present literature review was conducted to explore effectiveness of patient navigation and education on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion in medically underserved populations. Data collection included PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane reviews searches. Study inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials and prospective investigations that included an intervention and control group. Case series, brief communications, commentaries, case reports, and uncontrolled studies were excluded. Twenty-seven of the 36 studies screened for relevance were selected for inclusion. Most studies explored the utility of lay and clinic-based patient navigation. Others implemented interventions that included tailored messaging, and culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and education efforts to meet CRC screening needs of medically underserved individuals. More recent studies have begun to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses of patient navigation programs that impacted CRC screening and completion. Peer-reviewed publications consistently indicate a positive impact of patient navigation programs on CRC screening completion, as well have provided preliminary evidence for their cost-effectiveness.     

Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: current practices and approaches

BACKGROUND: Logistic, cultural, educational, and other barriers can impede the delivery of high-quality cancer care to underserved patients. Patient navigation services represent one innovation for addressing perceived barriers to care encountered by disadvantaged patients. In this report, the authors have 1) defined patient navigation, distinguishing it from other cancer support services; 2) described how programs are organized; and 3) discussed the need for research on program effectiveness. METHODS: Information was examined on navigation programs published in the scientific literature and on line. Qualitative research also was conducted, consisting of direct observation of patient care in cancer clinics with and without navigators in northern California, in-person interviews with personnel and patients in the clinics observed, and telephone interviews with navigators at four sites across the United States. RESULTS: The authors found that navigation services have been implemented at all stages of cancer care: prevention, screening, treatment, and survival. Navigators differ from other cancer support personnel in their orientation toward flexible problem solving to overcome perceived barriers to care rather than the provision of a predefined set of services. There are no rigorous demonstrations of the effects and effectiveness of navigation, although such studies are underway. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, patient navigation is understudied, and literature documenting its effects and effectiveness is scant. Rigorous studies are needed of the navigator role and program costs and benefits. Such studies will facilitate an assessment of program effectiveness, feasibility across a range of health care settings, and performance relative to alternative approaches for addressing barriers to care among the underserved.     

Nurses as patient navigators in cancer diagnosis: review, consultation and model design

The diagnostic phase of cancer care is an anxious time for patients. Patient navigation is a way of assisting and supporting individuals during this time. The aim of this review is to explore patient navigation and its role in the diagnostic phase of cancer care. We reviewed the literature for definitions and models of navigation, preparation for the role and impact on patient outcomes, specifically addressing the role of the nurse in patient navigation. Interviews and focus groups with healthcare providers and managers provided further insight from these stakeholder groups. Common to most definitions of navigation is the navigator's multifaceted role in facilitating processes of care, assisting patients to overcome barriers and providing information and support. Navigation may be provided by laypersons, clerical staff and/or healthcare professionals. In the diagnostic phase it has the potential to affect efficiency of diagnostic testing, patients' experience during this time and preparation for decision-making around treatment options. Patient care during the diagnostic phase requires various levels of navigation, according to individual informational, physical and psychosocial needs. Identifying those individuals who require more support--whether physical or psychosocial--during the diagnostic phase is of critical importance.     

Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science

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.     

Patient navigation for underserved patients diagnosed with breast cancer

The elimination of cancer disparities is critically important for lessening the burden of breast cancer (BC). Patient navigator programs (PNPs) have been shown to improve rates of BC screening in underserved communities, but there is a dearth of evidence regarding their benefits after the actual diagnosis of BC. We retrospectively examined sociodemographic characteristics, disease characteristics, and concordance to quality measures (QMs) of BC care among women participating in a PNP that services disadvantaged minority communities in the greater Boston area. Of the 186 PNP patients diagnosed with BC in 2001-2011 in three neighborhood community health centers, treatment data was available for 158 (85%) and race and disease stage information was available for 149 (80%). Regarding stage, 25% were diagnosed with in situ cancer, 32% had stage 1, 25% had stage 2, 13% had stage 3, and 5% had stage 4 BC. Guideline-indicated care was received by 70 of 74 patients (95%) for the hormonal therapy QM, 15 of 17 (88%) patients for the chemotherapy QM, and 65 of 71 (92%) patients for the radiation QM, all similar to published concordance rates at elite National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. These findings suggest that PNPs may facilitate evidence-based quality care for vulnerable populations. Future research should prospectively analyze quality metrics to assess measures to improve the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse underserved settings, compared with control non-navigated populations.     

Patient navigation: State of the art or is it science?

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.     

National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures

BACKGROUND.

Patient, provider, and systems barriers contribute to delays in cancer care, a lower quality of care, and poorer outcomes in vulnerable populations, including low‐income, underinsured, and racial/ethnic minority populations. Patient navigation is emerging as an intervention to address this problem, but navigation requires a clear definition and a rigorous testing of its effectiveness. Pilot programs have provided some evidence of benefit, but have been limited by evaluation of single‐site interventions and varying definitions of navigation. To overcome these limitations, a 9‐site National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) was initiated.

METHODS.

The PNRP is charged with designing, implementing, and evaluating a generalizable patient navigation program targeting vulnerable populations. Through a formal committee structure, the PNRP has developed a definition of patient navigation and metrics to assess the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse settings, compared with concurrent continuous control groups.

RESULTS.

The PNRP defines patient navigation as support and guidance offered to vulnerable persons with abnormal cancer screening or a cancer diagnosis, with the goal of overcoming barriers to timely, quality care. Primary outcomes of the PNRP are 1) time to diagnostic resolution; 2) time to initiation of cancer treatment; 3) patient satisfaction with care; and 4) cost effectiveness, for breast, cervical, colon/rectum, and/or prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS.

The metrics to assess the processes and outcomes of patient navigation have been developed for the NCI‐sponsored PNRP. If the metrics are found to be valid and reliable, they may prove useful to other investigators. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

Patient Navigators’ Reflections on the Navigator-Patient Relationship

Patient navigation emerged as a strategy to reduce cancer disparities among low-income and minority patients and has demonstrated efficacy in improving clinical outcomes. Observational studies have contributed valuable evaluations of navigation processes and tasks; however, few have offered in-depth reflections about the relationship between patient and navigator from the navigators’ perspective. These approaches have addressed the emotional and relational components of patient navigation through the lens of process factors, relegating the navigator-patient relationship to a siloed, compartmentalized functionality. To expand upon existing task-oriented definitions of navigation, we conducted qualitative interviews among community-based patient navigators who coordinated care for uninsured, predominantly Hispanic, women receiving cancer screening and follow-up care in a county outside Chicago. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes within the navigator-patient relationship domain. The main themes that emerged centered on relational roles, relational boundaries, and ideal navigator relational qualities. While patient navigators described engaging with patients in a manner similar to a friend, they stressed the importance of maintaining professional boundaries. Navigators’ support assisted patients in bridging their hospital and community lives, a result of navigators’ investment in both hemispheres. We conclude that the navigator-patient relationship is not a self-contained utility, but rather the medium through which all other navigator functions are enabled. These insights further characterize the navigator-patient relationship, which will help shape the development of future navigation programs and support the need for further research on the impact of relationship factors on clinical and psychosocial outcome measures.     

Patient navigation for breast and colorectal cancer in 3 community hospital settings: An economic evaluation

BACKGROUND:

The Ralph Lauren Cancer Center implemented patient navigation programs in sites across the United States building on the model pioneered by Harold P. Freeman, MD. Patient navigation targets medically underserved with the objective of reducing the time interval between an abnormal cancer finding, diagnostic resolution, and treatment initiation. In this study, the authors assessed the incremental cost effectiveness of adding patient navigation to standard cancer care in 3 community hospitals in the United States.

METHODS:

A decision‐analytic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of a colorectal and breast cancer patient navigation program over the period of 1 year compared with standard care. Data sources included published estimates in the literature and primary costs, aggregate patient demographics, and outcome data from 3 patient navigation programs.

RESULTS:

After 1 year, compared with standard care alone, it was estimated that offering patient navigation with standard care would allow an additional 78 of 959 individuals with an abnormal breast cancer screening and an additional 21 of 411 individuals with abnormal colonoscopies to reach timely diagnostic resolution. Without including medical treatment costs saved, the cost‐effectiveness ratio ranged from $511 to $2080 per breast cancer diagnostic resolution achieved and from $1192 to $9708 per colorectal cancer diagnostic resolution achieved.

CONCLUSIONS:

The current results indicated that implementing breast or colorectal cancer patient navigation in community hospital settings in which low‐income populations are served may be a cost‐effective addition to standard cancer care in the United States. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

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.     

The economic impact of a patient navigator program to increase screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND:

Patient navigation can increase colorectal cancer screening rates. The net economic impact of a colonoscopy patient navigator program was evaluated in an urban public hospital setting.

METHODS:

Cost, cost‐effectiveness, and cost‐benefit analyses were performed of a colonoscopy patient navigation program at 3 urban public hospitals in the period from 2003 to 2007. Program effectiveness was assessed in a 2‐group, pre‐ and post‐program, nonrandomized evaluation, comparing program hospitals with comparison hospitals that served similar populations. Costs were assessed from the provider's perspective. Outcomes included colonoscopy volume, colonoscopy completion rate, program cost, incremental cost‐effectiveness, and net monetary benefit.

RESULTS:

Patient navigation was associated with a 61% increase in average monthly colonoscopy volume at program hospitals, from 114 procedures to 184 procedures, compared with a 12% increase at comparison hospitals. Adjusted for other factors, the navigator program increased colonoscopy volume by 44 to 67 additional procedures per month. Average program cost varied from $50 to $300 per patient referred to a navigator. Incremental cost‐effectiveness varied from $200 to $700 per additional colonoscopy. At 2 hospitals, net revenue associated with increased colonoscopy volume exceeded the program cost per additional colonoscopy, yielding a net financial benefit; at the third hospital, the program yielded a net cost. Variation between hospitals in the program's economic impact was primarily attributable to differences in personnel costs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Economic evaluation of this colonoscopy patient navigator program in an urban public hospital setting suggests that such programs can be a cost‐effective use of limited resources and yield a net financial benefit for providers. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Innovative Approaches to Reducing Cancer Health Disparities

The Moffitt Cancer Center Patient Navigation Research Program (Moffitt PNRP) is evaluating the efficacy of patient navigation in reducing delays from screening abnormality to diagnostic resolution of a breast or colorectal abnormality. The Moffitt PNRP was conducted in three phases: (1) developing an acceptable, appealing, and culturally appropriate patient navigation program; (2) conducting a group randomized controlled trial to evaluate the patient navigation program; and (3) disseminating research findings and Moffitt PNRP intervention model. The patient navigation program was developed through significant formative research, input from the Moffitt PNRP Community Advisory Board, and through a close collaboration with the Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network. 1367 patients were enrolled in the Phase 2 group randomized trial of the Moffitt PNRP. Most Moffitt PNRP group randomized trial participants are Hispanic, female, and Spanish speaking, with minimal education and income. Analyses are currently being conducted to evaluate efficacy of the Moffitt PNRP.     

Do Better-Rated Navigators Improve Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care?

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.     

A multifaceted intervention to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved Korean women.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the proven survival benefits associated with cervical cancer screening, use of the Pap test continues to be suboptimal in some population subgroups, such as among Korean-American women who face considerable barriers to screening. Therefore, we evaluated a multifaceted intervention that combined psychoeducational counseling with patient navigation to address both psychosocial and access barriers to screening. METHOD: Women (n = 102) were recruited from Korean community centers and assigned to the intervention or control condition. The intervention group received cervical cancer education and patient navigation delivered by bilingual Korean health educators. The control group received general health education, including information about cervical cancer and screening. Assessments were obtained at baseline and postintervention. Screening behavior was assessed at 6 months postintervention. RESULTS: At baseline, 17% of participants reported having had a Pap test in the previous year. At 6 months postintervention, 83% of women in the intervention group had obtained screening compared with 22% in the control group, chi2(1) = 41.22, P < 0.001. Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that participation in the intervention was associated with screening (P < 0.001). Fewer psychosocial barriers (e.g., discomfort at having a stranger perform Pap) and greater self-efficacy were also associated with screening (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A combined modality intervention that delivers education with patient navigation training and assistance resulted in increased screening rates. Multifaceted approaches may be effective in reducing the psychosocial, access, and language barriers that contribute to cancer health disparities in underserved populations.     

Lay patient navigator program implementation for equal access to cancer care and clinical trials: essential steps and initial challenges

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer detection, treatment, and outcomes among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income patients are well documented. One way to reduce these disparities is to use patient navigators to address barriers to care. However, little information about optimal characteristics of navigator programs or considerations for those interested in setting up such programs is available. METHODS: The design and implementation of a patient navigator program for underserved cancer patients in an urban, nonacademic community hospital setting is described. The program, which used lay navigators, was conceived as a component of the Urban Latino African American Cancer (ULAAC) Disparities Project in South Los Angeles, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored project to improve cancer care and clinical trial access for minority and low-income patients. RESULTS: Careful initial planning, including input from a community advisory committee, was essential to smooth program implementation. Thirty-one volunteers completed navigator training in the program's first year of operation. Of 135 patients offered navigation services, 75 (56%) accepted, and preliminary feedback from patients, navigators, and providers suggests high levels of satisfaction with navigation. Standardized templates used by navigators and staff to record key information are proving helpful for monitoring quality and outcomes (such as effectiveness in addressing specific barriers to care) and continually improving the program. CONCLUSIONS: The ULAAC program represents a viable model for developing lay navigator programs in community hospitals. Preliminary assessments suggest that the program has a positive effect on minority and low-income cancer patients' experience with care and reduces barriers to care. Additional time and research are needed, however, to fully assess the impact on care and outcomes.     

Effects of an outreach and internal navigation program on breast cancer diagnosis in an urban cancer center with a large African-American population

BACKGROUND: Compared with white women, African-American (AA) women who are diagnosed with breast cancer experience an excess in mortality. To improve outcomes, the authors implemented community education and outreach initiatives in their cancer center, at affiliated primary care sites, and in the surrounding communities. They then assessed the effectiveness of these outreach initiatives and internal patient navigation on stage of diagnosis. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was an analysis of all women with breast cancer who were diagnosed and/or treated in the years from 2001 through 2004. The outreach initiatives were implemented in 2001; 125 trained Community Health Advocates (CHAs) provided educational programs to the community, and Patient Navigators communicated directly with patients to encourage screening, diagnostic procedures, and treatment. RESULTS: In total, 487 patients were diagnosed/treated from 2001 through 2004. Since 2001, there were 1148 community interventions by CHAs with an estimated program attendance of >10,000 participants. In the interval from 2001 through 2004, the proportion of stage 0 (in situ) breast cancers increased from 12.4% (n = 14) to 25.8% (n = 33; P < .005), and there was a decline in stage IV invasive breast cancers from 16.8% (n = 19) to 9.4% (n = 12; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The outreach initiatives and internal patient navigation appear to have improved stage at diagnosis. To determine whether specific patients presented earlier as a result of specific community outreach initiatives, prospective work is underway to measure the effects of these interventions on potential stage migration. Similarly, prospective data are being collected to determine whether Patient Navigators influence treatment and appointment adherence as well as the underlying reasons for barriers to specific interventions in this underserved minority population.     

Lay Navigator Model for Impacting Cancer Health Disparities

This paper recounts experiences, challenges, and lessons learned when implementing a lay patient navigator program to improve cancer care among medically underserved patients who presented in a primary care clinic with a breast or colorectal cancer abnormality. The program employed five lay navigators to navigate 588 patients. Central programmatic elements were the following: (1) use of bilingual lay navigators with familiarity of communities they served; (2) provision of training, education, and supportive activities; (3) multidisciplinary clinical oversight that factored in caseload intensity; and (4) well-developed partnerships with community clinics and social service entities. Deconstruction of healthcare system information was fundamental to navigation processes. We conclude that a lay model of navigation is well suited to assist patients through complex healthcare systems; however, a stepped care model that includes both lay and professional navigation may be optimal to help patients across the entire continuum.     

Cross-cultural validation of a Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator measure: a multi-site patient navigation research study

BACKGROUND: Patient navigators are trained to help patients effectively access and use healthcare resources in order to facilitate timely completion of recommended cancer screening, diagnostic care, and treatment. Patient navigators provide logistic, instrumental, and psychosocial support to cancer patients. Yet few studies have examined patient-navigator relationships, particularly for Spanish-speaking patients with low English proficiency. We aimed to validate a Spanish version of the Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator (PSN-I-Sp) scale. METHODS: We translated and back-translated the PSN-I into Spanish and administered the resulting PSN-I-Sp to 222 Spanish-fluent participants. We conducted a principal components analysis and assessed Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α) to evaluate the latent structure and the internal consistency of the PSN-I-Sp. We also completed correlation analyses to examine divergence and convergence of the PSN-I-Sp with the Spanish version of the Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care (PSCC-Sp) and the patients' demographics. RESULTS: The principal components analysis revealed a one-dimensional PSN-I-Sp measure that explained 82.0% of the variance. The reliability assessment revealed high internal consistency (α?=?0.97). The PSN-I-Sp demonstrated good face validity and adequate convergent and divergent characteristics as indicated by a moderate correlation with scores on the PSCC-Sp (all ps??0.05). CONCLUSION: The PSN-I-Sp is a valid and internally consistent measure of satisfaction with interpersonal relationship with a patient navigator for Spanish-speaking participants. Copyright ? 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.