↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review
Published in
Health Economics Review, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0196-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chloé Gervès-Pinquié, Anne Girault, Serena Phillips, Sarah Raskin, Mandi Pratt-Chapman

Abstract

Patient navigation has expanded as a promising approach to improve cancer care coordination and patient adherence. This paper addresses the need to identify the evidence on the economic impact of patient navigation in colorectal cancer, following the Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines. Articles indexed in Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science between January 2000 and March 2017 were analyzed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Inclusion criteria indicated that the paper's subject had to explicitly address patient navigation in colorectal cancer and the study had to be an economic evaluation. The search yielded 243 papers, 9 of which were finally included within this review. Seven out of the nine studies included met standards for high-quality based on CHEERS criteria. Eight concluded that patient navigation programs were unequivocally cost-effective for the health outcomes of interest. Six studies were cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies computed the direct costs of the program, which were defined a minima as the program costs. Eight of the reviewed studies adopted the healthcare system perspective. Direct medical costs were usually divided into outpatient and inpatient visits, tests, and diagnostics. Effectiveness outcomes were mainly assessed through screening adherence, quality of life and time to diagnostic resolution. Given these outcomes, more economic research is needed for patient navigation during cancer treatment and survivorship as well as for patient navigation for other cancer types so that decision makers better understand costs and benefits for heterogeneous patient navigation programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 29 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,435,801
of 24,155,398 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#100
of 466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,137
of 332,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,155,398 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,705 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them