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 influence of stimulus size on measured visual field extent in infants.

PURPOSE: To compare measured visual field extent for a 6 degrees stimulus (typical size used in studies of infants) with a 1.5 degrees stimulus (similar to the largest size used in Goldmann perimetry) in young infants. METHODS: A total of 120 infants (60 each at 3.5 months and 7 months of age) and 24 adults were tested monocularly with a kinetic perimetry procedure using a black double-arc perimeter. Each subject was tested with either a 6 degrees or 1.5 degrees white sphere, which was mounted on a black wand and moved smoothly toward the intersection of the perimeter arms at 3.4 degrees /s. Visual field extent along each perimeter arm was defined as the median of 2 to 3 measurements of the position of the leading edge of the stimulus when the subject made an eye movement toward the stimulus. RESULTS: The 6 degrees stimulus produced larger measured visual field extent than the 1.5 degrees stimulus in 3.5-month olds (temporal field only) and in 7-month olds (nasal and temporal field), but not in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Using the testing conditions of the present study, increasing stimulus size beyond the largest used in a Goldmann perimeter (approximately 2 degrees) increases measured visual field extent in young infants, but not in adults. This may relate to differences in peripheral summation areas or to differences in attentional factors between infants and adults.