Implementation of social needs screening for minoritized patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer: a mixed methods evaluation in a pragmatic patient navigation trial.

BACKGROUND: Social needs inhibit receipt of timely medical care. Social needs screening is a vital part of comprehensive cancer care, and patient navigators are well-positioned to screen for and address social needs. This mixed methods project describes social needs screening implementation in a prospective pragmatic patient navigation intervention trial for minoritized women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS: Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) was conducted at five cancer care sites in Boston, MA from 2018 to 2022. The patient navigation intervention protocol included completion of a social needs screening survey covering 9 domains (e.g., food, transportation) within 90 days of intake. We estimated the proportion of patients who received a social needs screening within 90 days of navigation intake. A multivariable log binomial regression model estimated the adjusted rate ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of patient socio-demographic characteristics and screening delivery. Key informant interviews with navigators (n = 8) and patients (n = 21) assessed screening acceptability and factors that facilitate and impede implementation. Using a convergent, parallel mixed methods approach, findings from each data source were integrated to interpret study results. RESULTS: Patients' (n = 588) mean age was 59 (SD = 13); 45% were non-Hispanic Black and 27% were Hispanic. Sixty-nine percent of patients in the navigators' caseloads received social needs screening. Patients of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (aRR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.06-1.48) and those with Medicare insurance (aRR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04-1.23) were more likely to be screened. Screening was universally acceptable to navigators and generally acceptable to patients. Systems-based supports for improving implementation were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Social needs screening was acceptable, yet with modest implementation. Continued systems-based efforts to integrate social needs screening in medical care are needed.

Primary Care After Pregnancy Survey: Patient Preferences, Health Concerns, and Anticipated Barriers.

Despite recommendations for ongoing care after pregnancy, many individuals do not see a primary care clinician within the first postpartum year, missing a critical window to engage reproductive-age individuals in primary care. We administered an anonymous, cross-sectional, trilingual survey at a large urban safety-net hospital to assess postpartum individuals' preferences, health concerns, and anticipated barriers to primary care during the year after pregnancy. While 90% of respondents preferred a visit within one year, most individuals - including those with complicated pregnancies - did not recall a primary care recommendation from their pregnancy care team. Respondents reported a variety of primary care-amenable health concerns, and many social and logistical barriers to care. Preference for virtual care increased if self-monitoring tools were hypothetically available, indicating virtual visits may improve primary care access.

Community-Based Cluster-Randomized Trial to Reduce Opioid Overdose Deaths.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices for reducing opioid-related overdose deaths include overdose education and naloxone distribution, the use of medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and prescription opioid safety. Data are needed on the effectiveness of a community-engaged intervention to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths through enhanced uptake of these practices. METHODS: In this community-level, cluster-randomized trial, we randomly assigned 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio to receive the intervention (34 communities) or a wait-list control (33 communities), stratified according to state. The trial was conducted within the context of both the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and a national surge in the number of fentanyl-related overdose deaths. The trial groups were balanced within states according to urban or rural classification, previous overdose rate, and community population. The primary outcome was the number of opioid-related overdose deaths among community adults. RESULTS: During the comparison period from July 2021 through June 2022, the population-averaged rates of opioid-related overdose deaths were similar in the intervention group and the control group (47.2 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 51.7 per 100,000 population), for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.09; P = 0.30). The effect of the intervention on the rate of opioid-related overdose deaths did not differ appreciably according to state, urban or rural category, age, sex, or race or ethnic group. Intervention communities implemented 615 evidence-based practice strategies from the 806 strategies selected by communities (254 involving overdose education and naloxone distribution, 256 involving the use of medications for opioid use disorder, and 105 involving prescription opioid safety). Of these evidence-based practice strategies, only 235 (38%) had been initiated by the start of the comparison year. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month multimodal intervention trial involving community coalitions in the deployment of evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths, death rates were similar in the intervention group and the control group in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fentanyl-related overdose epidemic. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; HCS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04111939.).

Burden and trajectory of social needs after breast cancer diagnosis at a safety-net hospital.

PURPOSE: Unmet social needs pose barriers to cancer care, contributing to adverse outcomes and health inequities. A better understanding of how social needs change after cancer diagnosis can inform more effective, equity-focused interventions. METHODS: In this study, we examined self-reported social needs at 0, 3, and 6 months after a breast cancer diagnosis in a racially diverse, multilingual sample (n = 222) enrolled in patient navigation intervention at an urban safety-net hospital. At each timepoint, respondents completed surveys about social needs related to employment, disability benefits, housing and utilities, and personal and family stability. RESULTS: Over three-quarters (78%, n = 175) reported ≥ 1 social need, and 46% (n = 102) reported ≥ 3 social needs. The most frequently reported need was housing and utilities (64%, n = 142), followed by employment (40%, n = 90). Individuals from minoritized groups more frequently reported an increased number of social needs over time, compared with their White counterparts (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that despite navigation, many cancer patients from historically underrepresented populations continue to experience social concerns over the first 6 months of treatment. Further research, conducted with historically underrepresented populations in research, is needed to better understand the social needs of breast cancer patients to inform effective and equitable interventions.

Strategies to promote language inclusion at 17 CTSA hubs.

The prioritization of English language in clinical research is a barrier to translational science. We explored promising practices to advance the inclusion of people who speak languages other than English in research conducted within and supported by NIH Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. Key informant interviews were conducted with representatives (n = 24) from CTSA hubs (n = 17). Purposive sampling was used to identify CTSA hubs focused on language inclusion. Hubs electing to participate were interviewed via Zoom. Thematic analysis was performed to analyze interview transcripts. We report on strategies employed by hubs to advance linguistic inclusion and influence institutional change that were identified. Strategies ranged from translations, development of culturally relevant materials and consultations to policies and procedural changes and workforce initiatives. An existing framework was adapted to conceptualize hub strategies. Language justice is paramount to bringing more effective treatments to all people more quickly. Inclusion will require institutional transformation and CTSA hubs are well positioned to catalyze change.

Strategies for Recruiting a Diverse Postpartum Survey Sample.

BACKGROUND: Data from diverse populations are needed to inform interventions for maternal health equity. However, research recruitment of postpartum individuals is challenging, especially in minoritized and structurally marginalized populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a recruitment strategy for a cross-sectional survey among postpartum individuals at an urban safety-net hospital in New England, inclusive of those with a language preference other than English (LPOE) and those not attending scheduled postpartum visits. Recruitment was primarily conducted before, during, and after clinic visits in obstetrics or pediatrics. Surveys could be completed in-person, over the phone, or online. All study materials were trilingual (English, Spanish, Haitian Creole). After reaching our recruitment goal of 120 individuals, we analyzed our recruitment efforts to identify key recruitment strategies. RESULTS: From April to June 2022, 245 individuals were invited to participate, and 120 (49%) completed the survey, of whom 119 contributed recruitment data to the present analysis. Most participants (83.1%) self-identified as Black or Hispanic, and 30.2% had an LPOE. Compared with the overall sample, participants with an LPOE were more likely to have been recruited in-person (73% versus 78%), while those not attending postpartum visits required more outreach attempts (mean 2.3 versus 2.6). We identified 4 key strategies contributing to recruitment success: multilingual materials, frequent assessment and adjustment of our recruitment approach, pediatrics-based recruitment, and multiple timings and modes of outreach. CONCLUSIONS: Using a multi-stage, multilingual, and multi-method recruitment strategy including pediatrics-based outreach, we recruited a diverse postpartum sample with > 80% individuals of color and > 30% with an LPOE. Our experience can inform more inclusive postpartum research.

Sociodemographic Variations in Women's Reports of Discussions With Clinicians About Breast Density.

Importance: Breast density notifications advise women to discuss breast density with their clinicians, yet little is known about such discussions. Objectives: To examine the content of women's reports of breast density discussions with clinicians and identify variations by women's sociodemographic characteristics (age, income, state legislation status, race and ethnicity, and literacy level). Design, Setting, and Participants: This US nationwide, population-based, random-digit dial telephone survey study was conducted from July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, among 2306 women aged 40 to 76 years with no history of breast cancer who underwent mammography in the prior 2 years and had heard the term dense breasts or breast density. Results were analyzed from a subsample of 770 women reporting a conversation about breast density with their clinician after their last mammographic screening. Statistical analysis was conducted in April and July 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey questions inquired whether women's clinicians had asked about breast cancer risk or their worries or concerns about breast density, had discussed mammography results or other options for breast cancer screening or their future risk of breast cancer, as well as the extent to which the clinician answered questions about breast density. Results: Of the 770 women (358 [47%] aged 50-64 years; 47 Asian [6%], 125 Hispanic [16%], 204 non-Hispanic Black [27%], 317 non-Hispanic White [41%], and 77 other race and ethnicity [10%]) whose results were analyzed, most reported that their clinicians asked questions about breast cancer risk (88% [670 of 766]), discussed mammography results (94% [724 of 768]), and answered patient questions about breast density (81% [614 of 761]); fewer women reported that clinicians had asked about worries or concerns about breast density (69% [524 of 764]), future risk of breast cancer (64% [489 of 764]), or other options for breast cancer screening (61% [459 of 756]). Women's reports of conversations varied significantly by race and ethnicity; non-Hispanic Black women reported being asked questions about breast cancer risk more often than non-Hispanic White women (odds ratio [OR], 2.08 [95% CI, 1.05-4.10]; P = .04). Asian women less often reported being asked about their worries or concerns (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.86]; P = .02), and Hispanic and Asian women less often reported having their questions about breast density answered completely or mostly (Asian: OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13-0.62]; P = .002; Hispanic: OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.87]; P = .02). Women with low literacy were less likely than women with high literacy to report being asked about worries or concerns about breast density (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.96]; P = .03), that mammography results were discussed with them (OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.16-0.63]; P = .001), or that their questions about breast density were answered completely or mostly (OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.32-0.81]; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, although most women reported that their clinicians counselled them about breast density, the unaddressed worries or concerns and unanswered questions, especially among Hispanic and Asian women and those with low literacy, highlighted areas where discussions could be improved.

Women's Reactions to Breast Density Information Vary by Sociodemographic Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Breast density information aims to increase awareness of breast density and its risks and to foster more informed future breast screening decisions among women with dense breasts. We explored associations between such information and outcomes including anxiety, confusion, or feeling informed, and whether they varied by race/ethnicity or literacy, or differentially affected future mammography plans. METHODS: A national telephone survey of a diverse sample of women previously informed of personal breast density (N = 1,322) assessed reactions to receipt of breast density information and future mammography plans. RESULTS: Most women (86%) felt informed after receiving personal breast density information; however, some felt anxious (15%) or confused (11%). Reactions varied significantly by sociodemographics; non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Hispanic women and women with low literacy were nearly two to three times more likely to report anxiety than non-Hispanic White women (all ps < .05). Asian women and those with low literacy less often felt informed and more often felt confused. Non-Hispanic Black and Asian women were nearly twice as likely to report that knowing their breast density made them more likely to have future mammograms. Women with low literacy were more likely to change mammography plans, with some being more likely and others less likely to plan to have future mammograms. Greater anxiety and confusion were associated with higher likelihood of planning future mammograms; those feeling informed were less likely to plan future mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Differential reactions to breast density information are concerning if associated with disparate future screening plans. Future breast density education efforts should ensure that such information is readily accessible and understandable to all women in order to lead to desired effects.

Prepregnancy Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in a Safety-Net Hospital.

Background: Many adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) are associated with elevated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, APO data in the context of pre-existing CVD risk factors, and from diverse populations, are limited. We assessed the occurrence of APOs among individuals with and without prepregnancy CVD risk factors, overall and by race/ethnicity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic medical record data from a large urban safety-net hospital. Individuals with prenatal care and delivery between 2016 and 2018 at the hospital were included, and data from prenatal intake through the delivery hospitalization were captured. The exposure, prepregnancy CVD risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, tobacco use, and obesity), and the outcome, APOs (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, low birth weight, and stillbirth), were identified from electronic medical records. Results: We identified 3760 unique delivering individuals, of whom 55.1% self-identified as Black non-Hispanic and 17% as Hispanic. Prepregnancy CVD risk factor prevalence was 45.6%, most commonly obesity (26.6%). APO prevalence was 35.6%, most commonly a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (20.1%). Overall, 45.7% of APOs occurred in the absence of recognized prepregnancy CVD risk factors, representing 16.3% of the total sample. Among individuals without prepregnancy CVD risk factors, APO prevalence was 30.0% and did not vary by race/ethnicity. Conclusions: In this racially and ethnically diverse hospital-based sample, APOs were present in one in three parous individuals without prepregnancy CVD risk factors-a group with potentially elevated CVD risk who might otherwise be missed by traditional CVD risk factor screening.

A discussion among deans on advancing community engaged research.

The benefits of community-engaged research (CEnR) have been documented in the literature. However, the adoption of community engaged (CE) and participatory approaches among health researchers remains limited. The Boston University (BU) Clinical Translational Science Institute's community engagement program initiated a discussion among five BU Deans to explore their approaches to support the practice of CEnR among faculty in their schools. The discussion was recorded and the transcript analyzed to identify and explore themes that emerged. Most strategies discussed by the Deans were not focused on changing institutional systems to advance CEnR. Instead, the analyses showed that institutional CE efforts highlighted by the Deans were focused on "responsibility centered on one person" or "research mentors." Approaches to developing a culture of CEnR that centers responsibility for promoting it on a few people in a university may place significant burden on leadership and researchers and is not an effective way to promote culture change. Systems change is needed to support CEnR, improve accountability, and realize successful partnerships between academic institutions and communities. The dialogue among Deans focused on the topic of CEnR provided an effective method to catalyze discussion and over time may help to strengthen a culture of CEnR research.

Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risks Among Women Receiving Mammograph Screening.

Importance: Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Despite the proliferation of mandated written notifications about breast density following mammography, there is little understanding of how women perceive the relative breast cancer risk associated with breast density. Objective: To assess women's perception of breast density compared with other breast cancer risks and explore their understanding of risk reduction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods qualitative study used telephone surveys and semistructured interviews to investigate perceptions about breast cancer risk among a nationally representative, population-based sample of women. Eligible study participants were aged 40 to 76 years, reported having recently undergone mammography, had no history of prior breast cancer, and had heard of breast density. Survey participants who had been informed of their personal breast density were invited for a qualitative interview. Survey administration spanned July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, with 2306 women completing the survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to May 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents compared the breast cancer risk associated with breast density with 5 other risk factors. Participants qualitatively described what they thought contributed to breast cancer risk and ways to reduce risk. Results: Of the 2306 women who completed the survey, 1858 (166 [9%] Asian, 503 [27%] Black, 268 [14%] Hispanic, 792 [43%] White, and 128 [7%] other race or ethnicity; 358 [19%] aged 40-49 years, 906 [49%] aged 50-64 years, and 594 [32%] aged ≥65 years) completed the revised risk perception questions and were included in the analysis. Half of respondents thought breast density to be a greater risk than not having children (957 [52%]), having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day (975 [53%]), or having a prior breast biopsy (867 [48%]). Most respondents felt breast density was a lesser risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer (1706 [93%]) or being overweight or obese (1188 [65%]). Of the 61 women who were interviewed, 6 (10%) described breast density as contributing to breast cancer risk, and 43 (70%) emphasized family history as a breast cancer risk factor. Of the interviewed women, 17 (28%) stated they did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of women of breast cancer screening age, family history was perceived as the primary breast cancer risk factor. Most interviewees did not identify breast density as a risk factor and did not feel confident about actions to mitigate breast cancer risk. Comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

Integrating community engagement with implementation science to advance the measurement of translational science.

This special communication provides an approach for applying implementation science frameworks to a Clinical and Translational Science Institutes (CTSIs) community engagement (CE) program that measures the use of implementation strategies and outcomes that promote the uptake of CE in research. Using an iterative multi-disciplinary group process, we executed a four-phased approach to developing an evaluation plan: 1) creating an evaluation model adapted from Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research; 2) mapping implementation strategies to CTSI CE program interventions that support change in research practice; 3) identifying and operationalizing measures for each strategy; and 4) conducting an evaluation. Phase 2 employed 73 implementation strategies across 9 domains generated by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project. The nine domains were used to classify each CE program implementation strategy. In Phase 3, the group used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to define measures for each individual strategy. Phase 4 demonstrates the application of this framework and measures Year 1 outcomes for the strategy providing interactive assistance, which we implemented using a centralized consultation model. This approach can support the CTSA program in operationalizing CE program measurement to demonstrate which activities and strategies may lead to benefits derived by the program, institution, and community.

Evaluating the sustainability of patient navigation programs in oncology by length of existence, funding, and payment model participation.

BACKGROUND: For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical-based and community-based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019. RESULTS: Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value-added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.

Patient navigation to address sociolegal barriers for patients with cancer: A comparative-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Sociolegal barriers to cancer care are defined as health-related social needs like affordable healthy housing, stable utility service, and food security that may be remedied by public policy, law, regulation, or programming. Legal support has not been studied in cancer care. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of patients who had newly diagnosed cancer at a safety-net medical center in Boston from 2014 through 2017, comparing standard patient navigation versus enhanced navigation partnered with legal advocates to identify and address sociolegal barriers. English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, or Haitian Creole-speaking patients with breast and lung cancer were eligible within 30 days of diagnosis. The primary outcome was timely treatment within 90 days of diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (distress, cancer-related needs, and satisfaction with navigation) at baseline and at 6 months. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients with breast cancer and 19 with lung cancer enrolled (response rate, 78%). The mean patient age was 55 years, 51% of patients were Black and 22% were Hispanic, 20% spoke Spanish and 8% spoke Haitian Creole, 73% had public health insurance, 77% reported 1 or more perceived sociolegal barrier, and the most common were barriers to housing and employment. Ninety-six percent of participants with breast cancer and 73% of those with lung cancer initiated treatment within 90 days. No significant effect of enhanced navigation was observed on the receipt of timely treatment among participants with breast cancer (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.17-4.52) or among those with lung cancer (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 0.35-45.4). No differences in patient-reported outcomes were observed between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation enhanced by access to legal consultation and support had no impact on timely treatment, patient distress, or patient needs. Although most patients reported sociolegal barriers, few required intensive legal services that could not be addressed by navigators. LAY SUMMARY: In patients with cancer, the experience of sociolegal barriers to care, such as unstable housing, utility services, or food insecurity, is discussed. Addressing these barriers through legal information and assistance may improve care. This study compares standard patient navigation versus enhanced navigation partnered with legal advocates for patients with breast and lung cancers. Almost all patients in both navigation groups received timely care and also reported the same levels of distress, needs, and satisfaction with navigation. Although 75% of patients in the study had at least 1 sociolegal barrier identified, few required legal advocacy beyond what a navigator who received legal information and coaching could provide.

Development of a workflow process mapping protocol to inform the implementation of regional patient navigation programs in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: Implementing city-wide patient navigation processes that support patients across the continuum of cancer care is impeded by a lack of standardized tools to integrate workflows and reduce gaps in care. The authors present an actionable workflow process mapping protocol for navigation process planning and improvement based on methods developed for the Translating Research Into Practice study. METHODS: Key stakeholders at each study site were identified through existing community partnerships, and data on each site's navigation processes were collected using mixed methods through a series of team meetings. The authors used Health Quality Ontario's Quality Improvement Guide, service design principles, and key stakeholder input to map the collected data onto a template structured according to the case-management model. RESULTS: Data collection and process mapping exercises resulted in a 10-step protocol that includes: 1) workflow mapping procedures to guide data collection on the series of activities performed by health care personnel that comprise a patient's navigation experience, 2) a site survey to assess program characteristics, 3) a semistructured interview guide to assess care coordination workflows, 4) a site-level swim lane workflow process mapping template, and 5) a regional high-level process mapping template to aggregate data from multiple site-level process maps. CONCLUSIONS: This iterative, participatory approach to data collection and process mapping can be used by improvement teams to streamline care coordination, ultimately improving the design and delivery of an evidence-based navigation model that spans multiple treatment modalities and multiple health systems in a metropolitan area. This protocol is presented as an actionable toolkit so the work may be replicated to support other quality-improvement initiatives and efforts to design truly patient-centered breast cancer treatment experiences. LAY SUMMARY: Evidence-based patient navigation in breast cancer care requires the integration of services through each phase of cancer treatment. The Translating Research Into Practice study aims to implement patient navigation for patients with breast cancer who are at risk for delays and are seeking care across 6 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts. The authors designed a 10-step protocol outlining procedures and tools that support a systematic assessment for health systems that want to implement breast cancer patient navigation services for patients who are at risk for treatment delays.

Barriers and opportunities to measuring oncology patient navigation impact: Results from the National Navigation Roundtable survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation improves cancer care delivery for those most at risk for poor outcomes. Lack of sustainable funding threatens the full integration of navigation services into health care delivery systems. Standardized navigation metrics that document impact and identify best practices are necessary to support sustainability. METHODS: The National Navigation Roundtable administered a web-based, cross-sectional survey to oncology patient navigation programs to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of navigation metrics. The 38-item survey asked about data-collection practices and specific navigation metrics used by the program. Exploratory and descriptive statistics were used to identify factors associated with data collection and reporting. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty respondents from across the country represented navigation programs across the continuum of care. Although 538 respondents (72%) reported participating in routine data collection, only one-half of them used data for reporting purposes. For the 374 programs that used electronic health records, only 40% had discrete, reportable navigation fields, and 25% had an identifier for navigated patients. Program funding was identified as the only characteristic associated with data collection, whereas the type of data collected was associated with work setting, participation in alternative payment models, and where on the continuum navigation services are provided. Respondents participating in an oncology accreditation program were more likely to collect specific outcome metrics across the continuum and to use those data for reporting purposes. The most common barriers to data collection were time (55%) and lack of support for complex data systems and/or platforms (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent data collection and reporting of oncology navigation programs remain a threat to sustainability. Aligning data collection with oncology accreditation, funding, and reimbursement is a viable path forward.

Exploring classes of cancer patient navigators and determinants of navigator role retention.

BACKGROUND: In the current nationwide study, the authors used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify classes of cancer patient navigators (CPNs) and examined whether class membership and 12 indicators were related to navigator role retention. METHODS: By using data from 460 CPNs in the United States, LCA identified classes (ie, homogenous subgroups) of CPNs with the following indicators: type of CPN (clinical vs nonclinical), education level, area(s) of the cancer care continuum in which the CPN provided patient navigation, region and urbanity where the CPN provided services, organizational work setting, and patient navigation program funding source. The associations of navigator retention with class membership and each indicator were examined using χ2 tests. RESULTS: LCA identified 3 classes of CPNs. Classes 1 and 3 were conceptualized as distinct, homogeneous subgroups of clinical CPNs that appeared to differ mainly on their likelihood of engagement in outreach, survivorship, palliative care, and end-of-life patient navigation. Class 2 was conceptualized as a nonclinical CPN subgroup that was distinct primarily based on their high endorsement of employment in programs, which are at least partially funded by grants and engagement in earlier stages of patient navigation (eg, early detection). The provision of survivorship and treatment patient navigation was related to navigator role retention, with senior CPNs providing these patient navigation services more than novice CPNs. CONCLUSIONS: The current study highlights 3 distinct classes of CPNs, provides initial information regarding determinants of navigator retention, and makes several recommendations for future patient navigation research.

Change agents in the oncology workforce: Let's be clear about community health workers and patient navigators.

Despite efforts of professional organizations and government agencies to solidify the professional identities of community health workers and patient navigators in the oncology workforce, the scientific literature perpetuates wide variation in the nomenclature used to define these natural change agents, who have proven efficacy in improving access to quality cancer care for historically marginalized populations. To disseminate, sustain, and scale-up these life-saving roles in cancer care, the oncology field must come together now to adopt clear and consistent job titles and occupational identities.

Collective pursuit for equity in cancer care: The National Navigation Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: The evidence continues to build in support of implementing patient navigation to reduce barriers and increase access to care. However, health disparities remain in cancer outcomes. The goal of the National Navigation Roundtable (NNRT) is to serve as a convener to help support the field of navigation to address equity. METHODS: To examine the progress and opportunities for navigation, the NNRT submitted a collection of articles based on the results from 2 dedicated surveys and contributions from member organizations. The intent was to help inform what we know about patient navigation since the last dedicated examination in this journal 10 years ago. RESULTS: The online survey of >700 people described navigators and examined sustainability and policy issues and the longevity, specific role and function, and impact of clinical and nonclinical navigators in addition to the role of training and supervision. In addition, a full examination of coronavirus disease 2019 and contributions from member organizations helped further define progress and future opportunities to meet the needs of patients through patient navigation. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve equity in cancer care will demand the sustained action of virtually every component of the cancer care system. It is the hope and intent of the NNRT that the information presented in this supplement will be a catalyst for action in this collective action approach.

Patient navigator team perceptions on the implementation of a citywide breast cancer patient navigation protocol: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018 Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP), an evidence-based patient navigation intervention aimed at addressing breast cancer care disparities, was implemented across six Boston hospitals. This study assesses patient navigator team member perspectives regarding implementation barriers and facilitators one year post-study implementation. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews at the six sites participating in the pragmatic TRIP trial from December 2019 to March 2021. Navigation team members involved with breast cancer care navigation processes at each site were interviewed at least 12 months after intervention implementation. Interview questions were designed to address domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), focusing on barriers and facilitators to implementing the intervention that included 1) rigorous 11-step guidelines for navigation, 2) a shared patient registry and 3) a social risk screening and referral program. Analysis was structured using deductive codes representing domains and constructs within CFIR. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with patient navigators, their supervisors, and designated clinical champions. Participants identified the following benefits provided by the TRIP intervention: 1) increased networking and connections for navigators across clinical sites (Cosmopolitanism), 2) formalization of the patient navigation process (Goals and Purpose, Access to Knowledge and Information, and Relative Advantage), and 3) flexibility within the TRIP intervention that allowed for diversity in implementation and use of TRIP components across sites (Adaptability). Barriers included those related to documentation requirements (Complexity) and the structured patient follow up guidelines that did not always align with the timeline of existing site navigation processes (Relative Priority). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides data using real-world experience from an intervention trial in progress, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing an evidence-based patient navigation intervention for breast cancer care. We identified core processes that facilitated the navigators' patient-focused tasks and role on the clinical team. Barriers encountered reflect limitations of navigator funding models and high caseload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT03514433 , 5/2/2018.