Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23393099›Full record

Trial reportHealth education research2013

Implementation of culturally targeted patient navigation system for screening colonoscopy in a direct referral system.

Lina Jandorf, Julia L Cooperman, Lauren M Stossel, Steven Itzkowitz, Hayley S Thompson, Cristina Villagra, Linda D Thélémaque, Thomas McGinn, Gary Winkel, Heiddis Valdimarsdottir and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health education research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Paying Attention to Miss(ed) FITs.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021
    Article
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lina JandorfMount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA, Population Studies and Disparities Research Program, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 4100 John R, MM03CB Detroit, MI 48201, USA and Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West, 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Julia L Cooperman
Lauren M Stossel
Steven Itzkowitz
Hayley S Thompson
Cristina Villagra
Linda D Thélémaque
Thomas McGinn
Gary Winkel
Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
Rachel C Shelton
William Redd
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

Patient Navigation for CRC Screening with Low-Income MinoritiesR01CA120658 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI REDD, WILLIAM H · 2007 to 2011
$3.3M
Research and Mentoring in Psychosocial OncologyK05CA108955 · NCI · MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU · PI REDD, WILLIAM H · 2004 to 2013
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS 5R01CA120658-02NCI NIH HHS K05 CA108955NCI NIH HHS R01 CA120658
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Low-income minorities often face system-based and personal barriers to screening colonoscopy (SC). Culturally targeted patient navigation (CTPN) programs employing professional navigators (Pro-PNs) or community-based peer navigators (Peer-PNs) can help overcome barriers but are not widely implemented. In East Harlem, NY, USA, where approximately half the residents participate in SC, 315 African American patients referred for SC at a primary care clinic with a Direct Endoscopic Referral System were recruited between May 2008 and May 2010. After medical clearance, 240 were randomized to receive CTPN delivered by a Pro-PN (n = 106) or Peer-PN (n = 134). Successful navigation was measured by SC adherence rate, patient satisfaction and navigator trust. Study enrollment was 91.4% with no significant differences in SC adherence rates between Pro-PN (80.0%) and Peer-PN (71.3%) (P = 0.178). Participants in both groups reported high levels of satisfaction and trust. These findings suggest that CTPN Pro-PN and Peer-PN programs are effective in this urban primary care setting. We detail how we recruited and trained navigators, how CTPN was implemented and provide a preliminary answer to our questions of the study aims: can peer navigators be as effective as professionals and what is the potential impact of patient navigation on screening adherence?

Indexed as

Cultural CompetencyReferral and ConsultationBlack or African AmericanColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansNew York CityPatient CompliancePatient NavigationPatient SatisfactionPeer GroupPovertyProgram DevelopmentTrust

Identifiers

PMID23393099
PMCPMC3772329
OpenAlexW2162998264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.