Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: The role of counseling in individual decision-making - A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The presentation of risks and benefits in clinical practice is common particularly in situations in which treatment recommendations involve trade-offs. The treatment of breast cancer risk with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) is such a decision. We investigated the influence of health care provider (HCP) counseling on women's decision-making. METHODS: Thirty breast cancer risk counseling sessions were recorded from April 2012-August 2013 at a comprehensive cancer center and at a safety-net, community hospital in the US. Participating women and HCPs were interviewed. A cross-case synthesis was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 30 participants 21 received a SERM-recommendation, 11 decided to take SERMs. Counseling impacted decision-making, but did not determine it. Three categories emerged: 1.) ability to change the decision anytime, 2.) perceptions on medications, and 3.) proximity of cancer. CONCLUSION: Decision-making under conditions of a risk diagnosis such as increased breast cancer risk is a continuous process in which risk information is transformed into practical and experiential considerations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals' health care decision-making is only marginally dependent on the interactions in the clinic. Accepting patients' experiences and beliefs in their own right and letting them guide the discussion may be important for a satisfying decision-making process.

Patient navigation for underserved patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

The elimination of cancer disparities is critically important for lessening the burden of breast cancer (BC). Patient navigator programs (PNPs) have been shown to improve rates of BC screening in underserved communities, but there is a dearth of evidence regarding their benefits after the actual diagnosis of BC. We retrospectively examined sociodemographic characteristics, disease characteristics, and concordance to quality measures (QMs) of BC care among women participating in a PNP that services disadvantaged minority communities in the greater Boston area. Of the 186 PNP patients diagnosed with BC in 2001-2011 in three neighborhood community health centers, treatment data was available for 158 (85%) and race and disease stage information was available for 149 (80%). Regarding stage, 25% were diagnosed with in situ cancer, 32% had stage 1, 25% had stage 2, 13% had stage 3, and 5% had stage 4 BC. Guideline-indicated care was received by 70 of 74 patients (95%) for the hormonal therapy QM, 15 of 17 (88%) patients for the chemotherapy QM, and 65 of 71 (92%) patients for the radiation QM, all similar to published concordance rates at elite National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. These findings suggest that PNPs may facilitate evidence-based quality care for vulnerable populations. Future research should prospectively analyze quality metrics to assess measures to improve the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse underserved settings, compared with control non-navigated populations.

Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science?

First implemented in 1990, patient navigation interventions are emerging today as an approach to reduce cancer disparities. However, there is lack of consensus about how patient navigation is defined, what patient navigators do, and what their qualifications should be. Little is known about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation. For this review, the authors conducted a qualitative synthesis of published literature on cancer patient navigation. By using the keywords 'navigator' or 'navigation' and 'cancer,' 45 articles were identified in the PubMed database and from reference searches that were published or in press through October 2007. Sixteen studies provided data on the efficacy of navigation in improving timeliness and receipt of cancer screening, diagnostic follow-up care, and treatment. Patient navigation services were defined and differentiated from other outreach services. Overall, there was evidence of some degree of efficacy for patient navigation in increasing participation in cancer screening and adherence to diagnostic follow-up care after the detection of an abnormality. The reported increases in screening ranged from 10.8% to 17.1%, and increases in adherence to diagnostic follow-up care ranged from 21% to 29.2% compared with control patients. There was less evidence regarding the efficacy of patient navigation in reducing either late-stage cancer diagnosis or delays in the initiation of cancer treatment or improving outcomes during cancer survivorship. There were methodological limitations in most studies, such as a lack of control groups, small sample sizes, and contamination with other interventions. Although cancer-related patient navigation interventions are being adopted increasingly across the United States and Canada, further research will be necessary to evaluate their efficacy and cost-effectiveness in improving cancer care.