Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29904805›Full record

ReviewHealth economics review2018

Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review.

Chloé Gervès-Pinquié, Anne Girault, Serena Phillips, Sarah Raskin, Mandi Pratt-Chapman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health economics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The Use of Physiotherapy Navigators in Acute Cancer Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Perspectives from oncology patient navigation programs on information management practices and needs: a descriptive study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Chloé Gervès-PinquiéResearch Institute for Environmental and Occupational Health (Irset-Inserm UMR1085), Ester Team - UFR Santé - Département de Médecine, Rue Haute de Reculée, 49045, ANGERS Cedex01, France. chloegerves@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2719-9801
Anne GiraultEA MOS 7348 - French School of Public Health, 20 avenue George Sand, 93200, Saint Denis, France.
Serena PhillipsInstitute for Patient-Centered Initiatives and Health Equity at the George Washington University Cancer Center, 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.
Sarah RaskinL. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Scherer Hall, #313923 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA.
Mandi Pratt-ChapmanInstitute for Patient-Centered Initiatives and Health Equity at the George Washington University Cancer Center, 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20037, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient navigation has expanded as a promising approach to improve cancer care coordination and patient adherence. This paper addresses the need to identify the evidence on the economic impact of patient navigation in colorectal cancer, following the Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines. Articles indexed in Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science between January 2000 and March 2017 were analyzed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Inclusion criteria indicated that the paper's subject had to explicitly address patient navigation in colorectal cancer and the study had to be an economic evaluation. The search yielded 243 papers, 9 of which were finally included within this review. Seven out of the nine studies included met standards for high-quality based on CHEERS criteria. Eight concluded that patient navigation programs were unequivocally cost-effective for the health outcomes of interest. Six studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies computed the direct costs of the program, which were defined a minima as the program costs. Eight of the reviewed studies adopted the healthcare system perspective. Direct medical costs were usually divided into outpatient and inpatient visits, tests, and diagnostics. Effectiveness outcomes were mainly assessed through screening adherence, quality of life and time to diagnostic resolution. Given these outcomes, more economic research is needed for patient navigation during cancer treatment and survivorship as well as for patient navigation for other cancer types so that decision makers better understand costs and benefits for heterogeneous patient navigation programs.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerCost-benefit analysisHealth care costsPatient navigation

Identifiers

PMID29904805
PMCPMC6002330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.