Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23672296›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2013

Patient barriers to follow-up care for breast and cervical cancer abnormalities.

Silvia Tejeda, Julie S Darnell, Young I Cho, Melinda R Stolley, Talar W Markossian, Elizabeth A Calhoun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Clinic type and patient characteristics affecting time to resolution after an abnormal cancer-screening exam.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Silvia TejedaInstitute for Health Research and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60608, USA. stejeda@uic.edu
Julie S Darnell
Young I Cho
Melinda R Stolley
Talar W Markossian
Elizabeth A Calhoun

Funding

UIC CENTERS FOR POPULATION HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIESP50CA106743 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI WARNECKE, RICHARD · 2003 to 2016
$19.3M
UIC CANCER PREVENTION &CONTROL RESEARCH TRAINING GRANTR25CA057699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI FITZGIBBON, MARIAN L. · 1992 to 2017
$8.2M
Chicago Cancer Navigation ProjectU01CA116875 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ROSEN, STEVEN TERRY · 2005 to 2011
$4.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA106743-07S1NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057699NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with breast or cervical cancer abnormalities can experience barriers to timely follow-up care, resulting in delays in cancer diagnosis. Patient navigation programs that identify and remove barriers to ensure timely receipt of care are proliferating nationally. The study used a systematic framework to describe barriers, including differences between African American and Latina women; to determine recurrence of barriers; and to examine factors associated with barriers to follow-up care.

methodsData originated from 250 women in the intervention arm of the Chicago Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP). The women had abnormal cancer screening findings and navigator encounters. Women were recruited from a community health center and a publicly owned medical center. After describing proportions of African American and Latina women experiencing particular barriers, logistic regression was used to explore associations between patient characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, and type of barriers.

resultsThe most frequent barriers occurred at the intrapersonal level (e.g., insurance issues and fear), while institutional-level barriers such as system problems with scheduling care were the most commonly recurring over time (29%). The majority of barriers (58%) were reported in the first navigator encounter. Latinas (81%) reported barriers more often than African American women (19%). Differences in race/ethnicity and employment status were associated with types of barriers. Compared to African American women, Latinas were more likely to report an intrapersonal level barrier. Unemployed women were more likely to report an institutional level barrier.

conclusionIn a sample of highly vulnerable women, there is no single characteristic (e.g., uninsured) that predicts what kinds of barriers a woman is likely to have. Nevertheless, navigators appear able to easily resolve intrapersonal-level barriers, but ongoing navigation is needed to address system-level barriers. Patient navigation programs can adopt the PNRP barriers framework to assist their efforts in assuring timely follow-up care.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPatient NavigationAdultBlack or African AmericanBreast NeoplasmsDelayed DiagnosisFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansMiddle AgedUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23672296
PMCPMC3678568

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.