Evaluating the Feasibility of Using a Mobile App to Track Oncology Patient Navigation Activities and Outcomes.

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the implementation of evidence-based interventions to prevent and control cancer, including patient navigation (PN); however, PN lacks standardized tools to measure effectiveness and aggregate data across programs. Using a mobile application (app) could provide a systematic infrastructure for cataloging PN activities and measuring patient outcomes. Objective: Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility of using a mobile app to assist with PN services within cancer control programs. Methods: Seven navigators in 6 geographically diverse PN programs evaluated the mobile app over a period of 5 to 9 months by using the app to track their daily activities. We evaluated the app's capability for collecting and reporting core data elements, such as time spent on outreach, patient care, and administrative tasks, as well as standardized metrics for program evaluation and monitoring. We obtained qualitative data during calls with the navigators through weekly journals and in-depth interviews. Results: The app was effective in tracking caseload, profiling patients' health challenges and barriers to screening and treatment, and capturing PN activities performed during patient encounters. App limitations included an unreliable reporting function, a requirement for internet connectivity, patient privacy concerns, and evolving technology. Discussion: Lessons learned from this evaluation will be useful in developing an app with more robust capabilities while retaining user-friendly features. Conclusion: Mobile technology may reduce individual and health system barriers to accessing cancer care and treatment and support posttreatment cancer survivors while also assisting navigators in conducting their work efficiently and effectively.

The role of a state health agency in promoting cancer prevention at the community level: examples from New York State.

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S. and more work is needed to decrease the number of new cancer cases and the number of cancer cases diagnosed at a late stage. In New York State, about 106,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year, 37% of which are diagnosed in adults aged 45-64 years and 55% in those aged ≥65 years. State health agencies are in a unique role to support implementation of cancer prevention strategies at the local level that may have a large impact on the burden of cancer by changing the context in which an individual makes health decisions. The New York State Department of Health, with support through the CDC, is implementing an 18-month cancer prevention demonstration project in two counties aimed at increasing access to nutritious foods, promoting exclusive breastfeeding and decreasing barriers to obtainment of cancer screening. The specific activities being used by the two counties are highlighted, and promising results after the first 6 months of the project are described. Lessons learned from these projects will be reported at regular intervals and used to inform development of larger, statewide initiatives aimed at reducing cancer incidence and death in New York State.

Evidence-based interventions and screening recommendations for colorectal cancer in comprehensive cancer control plans: a content analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. The extent to which Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) programs in states, tribal governments and organizations, territories, and Pacific Island jurisdictions address evidence-based recommendations and interventions for colorectal cancer in their CCC plans is largely unknown. METHODS: We downloaded CCC plans posted on the Cancer Control PLANET Web site for review. We searched the plans for key terms, identifying potential evidence-based content surrounding colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Content was abstracted for further review and classification. RESULTS: Of 55 plans reviewed, 54 (98%) referred to evidence-based recommendations or interventions for colorectal cancer or indicated they intended to refer to the evidence base when developing programs. More than 57% (n = 31) of programs referred to the American Cancer Society guidelines, 41% (n = 22) referred to the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and 11% (n = 6) referred to the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Few programs mentioned Research Tested Intervention Programs (n = 1), National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (n = 4), Cochrane Reviews (n = 2), or Put Prevention Into Practice (n = 2) in reference to evidence-based interventions for colorectal cancer prevention. CONCLUSION: Most CCC programs discussed either evidence-based screening guidelines or interventions in their cancer plans, although many mentioned this information exclusively as background information. We recommend that program planners be trained to locate evidence-based interventions and use consistent common language to describe them in their plans. CCC program planners should be encouraged to conduct and publish intervention studies.