Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816193›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026

Developing a practice framework for patient navigation in cancer care: a Global Initiative to Advance Cancer Navigation for Better Outcomes (GINO) project.

Imogen Ramsey, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Carla Thamm, Dawn Aubel, Jacqueline L Bender, Alexandre Chan, Melissa Chin, Margaret I Fitch, Michael Jefford, Ebele Mbanugo and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Toward a multi-level, needs-based approach to cancer navigation: Considerations for service design.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    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

14 authors.

Imogen RamseyCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Carla ThammCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Dawn AubelNovartis, Basking Ridge, NJ, USA.
Jacqueline L BenderCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alexandre ChanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Melissa ChinMultinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Margaret I FitchBloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael JeffordAustralian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ebele MbanugoRun for a Cure Africa, Lagos, Lagos State, Nigeria.
Enrique Soto-Perez-de-CelisUniversity of Colorado Cancer Centre, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Carolyn TaylorGlobal Focus on Cancer, South Salem, NY, USA.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
MASCC GINO Patient Navigation Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient navigation comprises person-centred activities focused on addressing barriers and facilitating timely access to health care. Despite demonstrated effectiveness, the scope of patient navigation remains unclear. To clarify the scope of patient navigation and support global implementation, the Global Initiative to Advance Cancer Navigation for Better Outcomes (GINO) aimed to develop a practice framework for patient navigation in cancer care. Phase 1 involved reviewing patient navigation literature and identifying key areas of practice. Phase 2 involved a modified Delphi process with international experts in navigation (July to December 2024) to establish consensus on practices to include in the framework. Patient navigation experts across regions and disciplines were invited. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted where participants rated the importance of each practice on a scale from 1 ("Not important") to 5 ("Critically important"). Practices rated ≥4 by ≥ 75% of participants in Round 2 met consensus criteria. The remaining items were discussed in a consensus meeting. Eighty-one experts from 29 countries (n = 45, 56% high-income, n = 36, 44% low-middle-income) participated in Round 1. Of these, 60 also participated in Round 2, including healthcare practitioners (n = 30, 50%), navigators (n = 16, 27%), researchers (n = 24, 40%), and advocates (n = 10, 17%). After Round 2, 27/35 (77%) practices reached consensus for inclusion. After the consensus meeting, two items were reworded, and 32 items were included in the final framework. We reached consensus among international experts on the contents of the GINO practice framework for patient navigation in cancer care. By describing the scope of patient navigation, the framework can support the development and implementation of patient navigation programs globally.

Indexed as

Cancer navigationDelphi studyOncology navigationPatient navigationPractice framework

Identifiers

PMID41816193
PMCPMC12973518

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.