Evaluating implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center using RE-AIM.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention that reduces cancer health disparities by directly addressing the barriers to care for underserved patients with cancer. Variability in design and integration of patient navigation programs within cancer care settings has limited this intervention's utility. The implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, allows quantitative and qualitative examination of effective implementation of patient navigation programs into cancer care settings. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center between June 2018 and October 2021. Using a 3-month longitudinal, non-comparative measurement period, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between participant-level demographics and primary (i.e., barrier reduction) and secondary (i.e., patient-reported outcomes) effectiveness outcomes. Mixed methods analyses were used to examine adoption and delivery of the intervention into the cancer center setting. Process-level analyses were used to evaluate maintenance of the intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 311) represented a largely underserved population, as defined by the National Cancer Institute, with the majority identifying as Hispanic/Latino, having a household income of $35,000 or less, and being enrolled in Medicaid. Participants were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most had advanced staged cancers. Pre-post-intervention analyses indicated significant reduction from pre-intervention assessments in the average number of reported barriers, F(1, 207) = 117.62, p < .001, as well as significant increases in patient-reported physical health, t(205) = - 6.004, p < .001, mental health, t(205) = - 3.810, p < .001, self-efficacy, t(205) = - 5.321, p < .001, and satisfaction with medical team communication, t(206) = - 2.03, p = .029. Referral patterns and qualitative data supported increased adoption and integration of the intervention into the target setting, and consistent intervention delivery metrics suggested high fidelity to intervention delivery over time. Process-level data outlined a successful transition from a grant-funded community-focused patient navigation intervention to an institution-funded program. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized the implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation program. Our analyses indicate successful implementation within a cancer care setting and provide a potential guide for other oncology settings who may be interested in implementing community-focused patient navigation programs.

Patient-reported financial toxicity, quality of life, and health behaviors in insured US cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Fighting cancer is a costly battle, and understanding the relationship between patient-reported financial toxicity (FT) and health outcomes can help inform interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors. METHODS: Stages I-III solid tumor, insured US cancer survivors (N = 103) completed a survey addressing FT (as measured by the standardized COST measure) and clinically relevant health outcomes (including health-related quality of life [HRQOL] and adherence to recommended survivorship health behaviors). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess demographic and disease-specific correlates of FT, and to assess the predictive value of FT on HRQOL and adherence to survivorship health behaviors. RESULTS: Approximately 18% of respondents noted FT levels associated with significant financial burden. In univariate analyses, after correcting for multiple comparisons, greater FT was associated with unpartnered status, non-retirement, and lower level of educational attainment. Greater FT was also significantly associated with HRQOL components of anxiety, fatigue, pain, physical functioning, and social functioning. FT was not significantly associated with any measured survivorship health behaviors. In multivariate analyses, FT was found to be a meaningful predictor of patient-reported anxiety, fatigue, physical functioning, and social functioning above and beyond theoretically and statistically relevant demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall levels of FT were lower among cancer survivors in this sample, as compared with active treatment patients assessed in previous studies, financial burden continued to be a concern for a significant minority of cancer survivors and was associated with components of reduced HRQOL. Further research is needed to understand FT among underinsured survivors and those treated in community oncology settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Incorporation of FT assessment into survivorship care planning could enhance clinical assessment of survivors' FT vulnerability, help address the dynamic and persistent challenges of survivorship, and help identify those most in need of intervention across the cancer care continuum.

Survivorship care plan outcomes for primary care physicians, cancer survivors, and systems: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: With the focus on survivorship care-coordination between oncology and primary care providers (PCPs), there is a need to assess the research regarding the use of survivorship care plans (SCPs) and determine emerging research areas. We sought to find out how primary care physicians have been involved in the use of SCPs and determine SCP's effectiveness in improving care for cancer survivors. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify gaps in the current research and reveal opportunities for further research. METHODS: We followed the methodology for scoping studies which consists of identifying the research question, locating relevant studies, selecting studies, charting the data, and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. RESULTS: Out of 5375 original articles identified in the literature search, 25 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Eight articles examined PCP-only related outcomes, eight examined survivor-only related outcomes, eight examined mixed outcomes between both groups, and one examined system-based outcomes. Findings highlighted several areas where SCPs may provide benefits, including increased confidence among PCPs in managing the care of survivors and increased quality of life and well-being for survivors. This research also highlighted the need for careful consideration of SCP mode of delivery and content in order to maximize their utility to patients and providers. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this review, SCPs may benefit providers and health care systems, but the benefits to patients remain unclear. Further research on the potential benefits of SCPs to particular patient populations is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SCPs appear to be beneficial to PCPs in improving overall quality of care. However, more work needs to be done to understand the direct impact on cancer survivors.