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.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Explicit Finite Element Models Accurately Predict Subject-Specific and Velocity-Dependent Kinetics of Sideways Fall Impact

The majority of hip fractures in the elderly are the result of a fall from standing or from a lower height. Current injury models focus mostly on femur strength while neglecting subject-specific loading. This article presents an injury modeling strategy for hip fractures related to sideways falls that takes subject-specific impact loading into account. Finite element models (FEMs) of the human body were used to predict the experienced load and the femoral strength in a single model. We validated these models for their predicted peak force, effective pelvic stiffness, and fracture status against matching ex vivo sideways fall impacts (n = 11) with a trochanter velocity of 3.1 m/s. Furthermore, they were compared to sideways impacts of volunteers with lower impact velocities that were previously conducted by other groups. Good agreement was found between the ex vivo experiments and the FEMs with respect to peak force (root mean square error [RMSE] = 10.7%, R² = 0.85) and effective pelvic stiffness (R² = 0.92, RMSE = 12.9%). The FEMs were predictive of the fracture status for 10 out of 11 specimens. Compared to the volunteer experiments from low height, the FEMs overestimated the peak force by 25% for low BMI subjects and 8% for high BMI subjects. The effective pelvic stiffness values that were derived from the FEMs were comparable to those derived from impacts with volunteers. The force attenuation from the impact surface to the femur ranged between 27% and 54% and was highly dependent on soft tissue thickness (R² = 0.86). The energy balance in the FEMS showed that at the time of peak force 79% to 93% of the total energy is either kinetic or was transformed to soft tissue deformation. The presented FEMs allow for direct discrimination between fracture and nonfracture outcome for sideways falls and bridge the gap between impact testing with volunteers and impact conditions representative of real life falls. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.