Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21659419›Full record

ReviewCA: a cancer journal for clinicians

Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science.

Electra D Paskett, J Phil Harrop, Kristen J Wells

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 270 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
270citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

270 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient navigation programmes for symptomatic lung cancer patients: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Systematic Review of Colorectal Cancer Screening-Related Apps.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effects of patient navigation on satisfaction with cancer care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

210 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Electra D PaskettMarionDivisionComprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA. Electra.Paskett@osumc.edu
J Phil Harrop
Kristen J Wells

Funding

University of Iowa Clinical and Translational Science Program (TL1)UL1RR025755 · NCRR · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2008 to 2011
$26.3M
Patient Navigator ProgramU01CA117281 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI ROETZHEIM, RICHARD G · 2005 to 2009
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA117281NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although patient navigation was introduced 2 decades ago, there remains a lack of consensus regarding its definition, the necessary qualifications of patient navigators, and its impact on the continuum of cancer care. This review provides an update to the 2008 review by Wells et al on patient navigation. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the number of published studies dealing with cancer patient navigation. The authors of the current review conducted a search by using the keywords "navigation" or "navigator" and "cancer." Thirty-three articles published from November 2007 through July 2010 met the search criteria. Consistent with the prior review, there is building evidence of some degree of efficacy of patient navigation in terms of increasing cancer screening rates. However, there is less recent evidence concerning the benefit of patient navigation with regard to diagnostic follow-up and in the treatment setting, and a paucity of research focusing on patient navigation in cancer survivorship remains. Methodological limitations were noted in many studies, including small sample sizes and a lack of control groups. As patient navigation programs continue to develop across North America and beyond, further research will be required to determine the efficacy of cancer patient navigation across all aspects of the cancer care continuum.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareContinuity of Patient CareEarly Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Status DisparitiesHumansNeoplasmsSocioeconomic FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID21659419
PMCPMC3623288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.