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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers

Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention involving trained healthcare workers who assist patients in assessing and mitigating personal and environmental factors to promote healthy behaviors. The purpose of this research is to systematically assess the efficacy of patient navigation and similar programs to improve diagnosis and treatment of diseases affecting medically underserved populations. A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL to identify potential studies. Eligible studies were those containing original peer-reviewed research reports in English on patient navigation, community health workers, vulnerable and underserved populations, and healthcare disparity. Specific outcomes regarding patient navigator including the effect of the intervention on definitive diagnosis and effect on initiation of treatment were extracted from each study. The search produced 1428 articles, and 16 were included for review. All studies involved patient navigation in the field of oncology in underserved populations. Timing of initial contact with a patient navigator after diagnostic or screening testing is correlated to the effectiveness of the navigator intervention. The majority of the studies reported significantly shorter time intervals to diagnosis and to treatment with patient navigation. Patient navigation expedites oncologic diagnosis and treatment of patients in underserved populations. This intervention is more efficacious when utilized shortly after screening or diagnostic testing.     

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.     

Do Navigators’ Estimates of Navigation Intensity Predict Navigation Time for Cancer Care?

Patient navigation requires that patient load be equitably distributed. We examined whether navigators could predict the relative amount of time needed by different patients for navigation. Analysis of 139 breast and colorectal cancer patients randomized to the navigation arm of a trial evaluating the effectiveness of navigation. Navigators completed a one-item scale estimating how much navigation time patients were likely to require. Participants were mostly females (89.2%) with breast cancer (83.4%); barriers to cancer care were insurance difficulties (26.6%), social support (18.0%), and transportation (14.4%). Navigator baseline estimates of navigation intensity predicted total navigation time, independent of patient characteristics. The total number of barriers, rather than any specific type of barrier, predicted increased navigator time, with a 16% increase for each barrier. Navigators’ estimate of intensity independently predicts navigation time for cancer patients. Findings have implications for assigning navigator case loads.     

Moving the Agenda Forward for Cancer Patient Navigation: Understanding Volunteer and Peer Navigation Approaches

Across Canada, individuals diagnosed with cancer have identified concerns about access to services before, during, and following treatment, highlighting a very real uncertainty that exists about where to turn for information and assistance. Cancer patient navigation programs are emerging as effective interventions, well-equipped to meet these patients’ diverse needs. While many provinces have initiated professionally led navigation services, little is known about the potential for volunteer-led navigation. This article highlights pilot programs in British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland, where volunteers are engaged as lay or peer providers of cancer patient navigation services. By describing the recruitment, training, and role of the navigators within each program, the paper underscores the capacity for unique programs to work within current care frameworks across distinct communities. These programs provide an innovative approach to overcoming barriers and augmenting access to supportive care for cancer patients and their family members.     

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.     

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.     

Implementation of Value Based Breast Cancer Care

PurposeAdding value of care to patients is crucial for all stakeholders. The use of both provider and patient reported outcome data was implemented in a single academic breast cancer center. We describe the development of the outcomes set, data integration within electronical health records (EHR) and clinical use.MethodsAn Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) was constructed providing the full care cycle for breast cancer patients. Provider reported outcomes and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were defined, reflecting the entire cycle of care and long-term sustainability of quality of life. Multidisciplinary provider and patient perspectives were obtained via focus groups and surveys. Patient pathways were redesigned in order to identify suitable opportunities for data collection during the entire care cycle.ResultsA Standard Set for Breast Cancer Outcomes together with case-mix variables and timelines was agreed upon within the IPU. A secure electronic platform, directly linked to the EHR, was designed to measure PROs during the outpatient phase. First year evaluation showed a decrease of response rates over time, from 83.3% at baseline to 45.2% at 12 months after surgery. Patients reacted positively to the use of PROMs in daily clinical cancer care.ConclusionAssessment of patient reported as well as provider reported outcomes was implemented within our standard of breast cancer care. For this, dedicated resources, change of culture and practice, and improved knowledge and awareness about Value-based healthcare (VBHC) were essential. Our proposed framework aims to serve as a blueprint for implementation of VBHC in daily care.     

Restructuring Skin Cancer Care in Ontario: A Provincial Plan

There is a global rise in skin cancer incidence, resulting in an increase in patient care needs and healthcare costs. To optimize health care planning, costs, and patient care, Ontario Health developed a provincial skin cancer plan to streamline the quality of care. We conducted a systematic review and a grey literature search to evaluate the definitions and management of skin cancer within other jurisdictions, as well as a provincial survey of skin cancer care practices, to identify care gaps. The systematic review did not identify any published comprehensive skin cancer management plans. The grey literature search revealed skin cancer plans in isolated regions of the United Kingdom (U.K.), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for skin cancer quality indicators and regional skin cancer biopsy clinics, and wait time guidelines in Australia and the U.K. With the input of the Ontario Cancer Advisory Committee (CAC), unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancers and the appropriate cancer services were created. A provincial survey of skin cancer care yielded 44 responses and demonstrated gaps in biopsy access. A skin cancer pathway map was created and a recommendation was made for regional skin cancer biopsy clinics. We have created unique definitions for complex and non-complex skin cancer and a skin cancer pathways map, which will allow for the implementation of both process and performance metrics to address identified gaps in care.     

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.     

The emerging role and needs of family caregivers in cancer care

Involvement of family caregivers is essential for optimal treatment of cancer patients in ensuring treatment compliance, continuity of care, and social support, particularly at the end of life. The diagnosis of cancer presents a major crisis not only to the patient but also to the patient's primary caregiver. Caregivers often assume this role under sudden and extreme circumstances, with minimal preparation and uneven guidance and support from the healthcare system. The primary setting for the delivery of care to patients with cancer has shifted from the hospital to the home as a result of increased use of outpatient services for cancer treatment, shortened hospital visits, longer survival,and the trend for caregivers to accommodate patients' desire to be cared for at home for as long as possible. Caring for a family member with cancer poses significant challenges, with considerable psychological and physical consequences for the caregiver. Family caregiving has gained attention in the past decade with growing realization that support for family caregivers benefits the caregiver, the patient, and the healthcare team.This article will attempt to provide an understanding of the multifaceted role of caregivers in cancer care, describe the impact of this role on the caregiver's quality of life, impart an understanding of the caregiver's burden and unmet needs, highlight adaptational requirements of caregivers along the disease trajectory, and describe interventions for providing support to nonmedical persons caring for patients with cancer.     

A Community-Based Outreach Navigator Approach to Establishing Partnerships for a Safety Net Mammography Screening Center

Washington, DC, has one of the highest incidence and mortality rates for breast cancer in the USA. Patient navigation coupled with informational and community resources are important strategies that assist patients’ access and help them understand the complex world of cancer care. The Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Capital Breast Care Center (CBCC) is a safety net mammography screening center that utilizes a community-based navigation program. In addition to providing assistance with coordination of clinical services, navigators at CBCC are integral in establishing intra-community partnerships to educate members of the community about breast cancer screening. The aim of this study was to detail the role of patient navigation at the CBCC, with an emphasis on community engagement and community-based partnerships. We describe the process by which CBCC established partnerships with multiple community organizations between 2004 and 2015 and analyzed data of women screened in relationship to the evolution of the patient navigation services. Application of the CBCC navigation model that integrates individual patient outreach with community engagement has yielded viable and lasting community partnerships that have resulted in an increase in mammography uptake, especially among medically underserved minority women.     

Barriers and Challenges of Cancer Patients and Their Experience with Patient Navigators in the Rural US/Mexico Border Region

Patient navigation is a widely used approach to minimize health disparities among socioeconomically marginalized cancer patients. Although patient navigation is widely used, there is a dearth of studies exploring patient experience with navigators among rural cancer patients. This qualitative study explores the challenges and barriers to cancer care faced by cancer patients living in a US/Mexico border region in Southern California. We individually interviewed 22 cancer patients, most of whom were Latino. Data were analyzed using constant comparison with a reiterative analysis method. The main themes relating to barriers to care and experiences with patient navigators include the following: (1) removing financial barriers, (2) coordinating services, and (3) providing therapeutic interventions. The cancer patients highly valued the navigators for their knowledge about community resources, support, and advocacy. This study suggests that it is imperative that navigators know the regional and binational health care utilization issues that impact patients’ access to cancer care.     

Effect of Patient Navigation on Time to Diagnostic Resolution among Patients with Colorectal Cancer-Related Abnormalities

The objective of this study is to evaluate whether a patient navigation (PN) program is effective in reducing delay in diagnostic resolution among medically underserved patients with colorectal cancer (CRC)-related abnormalities in Tampa Bay, Florida. This study involved ten primary care clinics randomized either to receive navigation or to serve as controls (five clinics per arm). Each clinic identified all subjects with CRC-related abnormalities in the year prior to the clinic beginning participation in the Moffitt Patient Navigator Research Program. Patients with CRC-related abnormalities were navigated from the time of a colorectal abnormality to diagnostic resolution. Control patients received usual care, and outcome information was obtained from medical record abstraction. Using a frailty Cox proportional hazard model, we examined the length of time between colorectal abnormality and definitive diagnosis. One hundred ninety-three patients were eligible for the study because of a CRC-related abnormality (75 navigated and 118 controls). Analysis of PN effect by two time periods of resolution (0–4 and >4 months) showed a lagged effect of PN. The adjusted time-varying PN effect on diagnostic resolution compared to the controls was marginally significant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]?=?1.15, 95 % confidence interval?=?1.02–1.29) after controlling for insurance status. The predicted aHR at 4 months was 1.2, but showed no significant effect until 12 months. For patients having an abnormal symptom of CRC, PN appeared to have a positive effect over time and sped diagnostic resolution after 4 months. However, the small sample size limits drawing a definitive conclusion regarding the positive PN effect.