Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522246›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2015

Patient navigation to improve follow-up of abnormal mammograms among disadvantaged women.

Sanja Percac-Lima, Jeffrey M Ashburner, Anne Marie McCarthy, Sorbarikor Piawah, Steven J Atlas

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Group Versus Individual Educational Sessions With aAJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2019
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. A Patient Navigation Model for Veterans Traveling for Cancer Care.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2016
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sanja Percac-Lima1 Chelsea HealthCare Center, Massachusetts General Hospital , Chelsea, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey M Ashburner
Anne Marie McCarthy
Sorbarikor Piawah
Steven J Atlas
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USChelsea Hospital · US

Funding

Penn Center for Innovation in Personalized Breast ScreeningU54CA163313 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARMSTRONG, KATRINA, SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 2011 to 2017
$7.4M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163313.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient navigation (PN) can improve breast cancer care among disadvantaged women. We evaluated the impact of a PN program on follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.

methodsBetween 2007 and 2010, disadvantaged women with an abnormal mammogram (Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] codes 0, 3, 4, 5) cared for in a community health center (CHC) with PN were compared to those receiving care in 11 network practices without PN. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to compare the percentages receiving appropriate follow-up and time to follow-up between the groups.

resultsAbnormal mammography findings were reported for 132 women in the CHC with PN and 168 from practices without PN. The percentage of women with appropriate follow-up care was higher in the practice with PN than in non-PN practices (90.4% vs. 75.3%, adjusted p=0.006). RESULTS varied by BI-RADS score for women in PN and non-PN practices (BI-RADS 0, 93.7% vs. 90.2%, p=0.24; BI-RADS 3, 85.7% vs. 49.2%, p=0.003; BI-RADS 4/5, 95.1% vs. 82.8%, p=0.26). Time to follow-up was similar for BI-RADS 0 and occurred sooner for women in the PN practice than in non-PN practices for BI-RADS 3 and 4/5 (BI-RADS 3, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.41 [1.36-4.27], BI-RADS 4/5, aHR [95% CI]: 1.41 [0.88-2.24]).

conclusionsDisadvantaged women from a CHC with PN were more likely to receive appropriate follow-up after an abnormal mammogram than were those from practices without PN. Expanding PN to include all disadvantaged women within primary care networks could improve equity in cancer care.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMammographyPatient NavigationAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCommunity Health CentersFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMassachusettsMedically Underserved AreaMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID25522246
PMCPMC4326264
OpenAlexW2329836880

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.