4.7 Article

Patient Navigation for Underserved Patients Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 1027-1031

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0191

关键词

Patient navigation; Cancer disparities; Breast cancer; Outcomes

类别

资金

  1. Avon Foundation
  2. Novartis
  3. Roche
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Pfizer
  6. Abraxis
  7. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  8. GlaxoSmithKline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. The Oncologist 2012;17:1027-1031

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据