ArticleCancer2025
Multilevel challenges and adaptations to patient navigation programs for colorectal cancer screening and follow-up: Findings from the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and follow-up through Implementation Science consortium.
Article in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Editorial: Equity in cancer prevention and early detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient navigation services can substantially boost participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up. As part of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) consortium, this study describes facilitators, barriers, and context-specific adaptations to sustainably deliver navigation in diverse settings.
methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with patient navigators and ACCSIS research project team members between February and August 2024; interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via rapid methods.
resultsSeventeen patient navigators and eight research project team members (from six research projects) were interviewed. The navigation programs varied in scope: supporting initial screenings, follow-ups for abnormal stool tests, or both. Common facilitators were training navigators via multiple teaching methods and integrating navigators directly into clinic teams. Common barriers were high staff turnover, lack of sustainable funding for navigator positions, limited clinic resources and inadequate electronic health record tools, difficulty in contacting patients, and problems in accessing endoscopy services. Common adaptations made to improve programs included providing gift bags or drop boxes to make stool testing more appealing to patients, adjusting how often and how navigators were trained, evaluating clinic and specialist capacity before implementation, allowing navigators to schedule colonoscopies directly, and establishing partnerships that reduced colonoscopy costs and shortened wait times.
conclusionsIdentified barriers to patient navigation program implementation might be addressed by providing ongoing navigator training via multiple delivery modes; applying best practices for engaging clinic teams, gastroenterology practices, and community partners; building centralized repositories of navigation training and patient-facing materials; and securing consistent funding via billing and institutional support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.