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.     

How physiotherapists perceive,interpret, and respond to the ethical dimensions of practice: A qualitative study

The profile and reach of physiotherapy has expanded in areas of extended scope of practice, and broader engagement with population needs beyond the individual treatment encounter. These changes raise increasingly complex ethical challenges evidenced by growth in physiotherapy-based ethics studies and discussions. This paper examines how a broad cross section of Australian physiotherapists perceive, interpret, and respond to ethical challenges in their work contexts and how professional codes of conduct are used in their practice. Using an interpretive qualitative methodology, purposive sampling of 88 members of national clinical special interest groups were recruited for focus group discussions. Narrative-based and thematic data analysis identified ethical challenges as emerging from specific clinical contexts, and influenced by health organizations, funding policies, workplace relationships, and individually held perspectives. Five themes were developed to represent these findings: (1) the working environment, (2) balancing diverse needs and expectation, (3) defining ethics, (4) striving to act ethically, and (5) talking about ethics. The results portray a diverse and complex ethical landscape where therapists encounter and grapple with ethical questions emerging from the impact of funding models and policies affecting clinical work, expanding boundaries and scope of practice and changing professional roles and relationships. Codes of conduct were described as foundational ethical knowledge but not always helpful for “in the moment” ethical decision-making. Based on this research, we suggest how codes of conduct, educators, and professional associations could cultivate and nurture ethics capability in physiotherapy practitioners for these contemporary challenges.