BACKGROUND. Patient, provider, and systems barriers contribute to delays in cancer care, a lower quality of care, and poorer outcomes in vulnerable populations, including low‐income, underinsured, and racial/ethnic minority populations. Patient navigation is emerging as an intervention to address this problem, but navigation requires a clear definition and a rigorous testing of its effectiveness. Pilot programs have provided some evidence of benefit, but have been limited by evaluation of single‐site interventions and varying definitions of navigation. To overcome these limitations, a 9‐site National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) was initiated. METHODS. The PNRP is charged with designing, implementing, and evaluating a generalizable patient navigation program targeting vulnerable populations. Through a formal committee structure, the PNRP has developed a definition of patient navigation and metrics to assess the process and outcomes of patient navigation in diverse settings, compared with concurrent continuous control groups. RESULTS. The PNRP defines patient navigation as support and guidance offered to vulnerable persons with abnormal cancer screening or a cancer diagnosis, with the goal of overcoming barriers to timely, quality care. Primary outcomes of the PNRP are 1) time to diagnostic resolution; 2) time to initiation of cancer treatment; 3) patient satisfaction with care; and 4) cost effectiveness, for breast, cervical, colon/rectum, and/or prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS. The metrics to assess the processes and outcomes of patient navigation have been developed for the NCI‐sponsored PNRP. If the metrics are found to be valid and reliable, they may prove useful to other investigators. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

Patient navigation demonstrated a moderate benefit in improving timely cancer care. These results support adoption of patient navigation in settings that serve populations at risk of being lost to follow-up.

Background: Women have entered academic medicine in significant numbers for 4 decades and now comprise 20% of full-time faculty. Despite this, women have not reached senior positions in parity with men. We sought to explore the gender climate in academic medicine as perceived by representatives to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) and Group on Diversity and Inclusion (GDI). Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of semistructured telephone interviews with GWIMS and GDI representatives and other senior leaders at 24 randomly selected medical schools of the 1995 National Faculty Study. All were in the continental United States, balanced for public/private status and AAMC geographic region. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and organized into content areas before an inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Themes that were expressed by multiple informants were studied for patterns of association. Results: Five themes were identified: (1) a perceived wide spectrum in gender climate; (2) lack of parity in rank and leadership by gender; (3) lack of retention of women in academic medicine (the ''leaky pipeline''); (4) lack of gender equity in compensation; and (5) a disproportionate burden of family responsibilities and work-life balance on women's career progression. Conclusions: Key informants described improvements in the climate of academic medicine for women as modest. Medical schools were noted to vary by department in the gender experience of women, often with no institutional oversight. Our findings speak to the need for systematic review by medical schools and by accrediting organizations to achieve gender equity in academic medicine.

Gender disparities in rank, retention, and leadership remain across the career trajectories of the faculty cohort in this study. Women were less likely to attain senior-level positions than men, even after adjusting for publication-related productivity. Institutions must examine the climate for women to ensure their academic capital is fully utilized and equal opportunity exists for leadership.

Background There is a need for controlled studies to assess the impact of patient navigation in vulnerable cancer populations. Methods Boston Patient Navigation Research Program conducted a quasi-experimental patient navigation intervention across six federally qualified inner-city community health centers, three assigned to a breast cancer navigation intervention and three assigned to a cervical cancer navigation intervention; each group then served as the control for the other. Eligible women had an abnormal breast or cervical cancer screening test performed at one of the participating health centers during a baseline (2004–2005) or intervention period (2007–2008). Kaplan-Meier survival curves and proportional hazards regression examined the effect of patient navigation on time to definitive diagnosis, adjusting for covariates, clustering by clinic and differences between the baseline and intervention period. Results We enrolled 997 subjects in the baseline period and 3,041 subjects during the intervention period, of whom 1,497 were in the navigated arm, and 1,544 in the control arm. There was a significant decrease in time to diagnosis for subjects in the navigated group compared with controls among those with a cervical screening abnormality (aHR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.1–1.9); and among those with a breast cancer screening abnormality who resolved after 60 days (aHR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.1–1.9), with no differences before 60 days. Conclusions This study documents a benefit of patient navigation on time to diagnosis among a racially/ethnically diverse inner city population. Impact Patient navigation may address cancer health disparities by reducing time to diagnosis following an abnormal cancer screening event.

Objective Greater numbers of women in medicine have not resulted in more women achieving senior positions. Programs supporting recruitment, promotion and retention of women in academic medicine could help to achieve greater advancement of more women to leadership positions. Qualitative research was conducted to understand such programs at 23 institutions and, using the social ecological model, examine how they operate at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, academic community and policy levels. Methods Telephone interviews were conducted with faculty representatives (N=44) of the Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS), Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) or senior leaders with knowledge on gender climate in 24 medical schools. Four trained interviewers conducted semi-structured interviews that addressed faculty perceptions of gender equity and advancement, which were audio-taped and transcribed. The data were categorized into three content areas: recruitment, promotion and retention, and coded a priori for each area based on their social ecological level of operation. Findings Participants from nearly 40% of the institutions reported no special programs for recruiting, promoting or retaining women, largely describing such programming as unnecessary. Existing programs primarily targeted the individual and interpersonal levels simultaneously, via training, mentoring, and networking, or the institutional level, via search committee trainings, child and elder care, and spousal hiring programs. Lesser effort at the academic community and policy levels were described. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that many US medical schools have no programs supporting gender equity among medical faculty. Existing programs primarily target the individual or interpersonal level of the social ecological interaction. The academic community and broader policy environment require greater focus as levels with little attention to advancing women’s careers. Universal multi-level efforts are needed to more effectively advance the careers of medical women faculty and support gender equity.

IMPORTANCE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction worldwide. It remains unknown whether a ventral or dorsal surgical approach provides the best results.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a ventral surgical approach compared with a dorsal surgical approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy improves patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of patients aged 45 to 80 years with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy enrolled at 15 large North American hospitals from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2018; final follow-up was April 15, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo ventral surgery (n = 63) or dorsal surgery (n = 100). Ventral surgery involved anterior cervical disk removal and instrumented fusion. Dorsal surgery involved laminectomy with instrumented fusion or open-door laminoplasty. Type of dorsal surgery (fusion or laminoplasty) was at surgeon's discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 1-year change in the Short Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]; minimum clinically important difference = 5). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, complications, work status, sagittal vertical axis, health resource utilization, and 1-and 2-year changes in the Neck Disability Index and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score.RESULTS Among 163 patients who were randomized (mean age, 62 years; 80 [49%] women), 155 (95%) completed the trial at 1 year (80% at 2 years). All patients had surgery, but 5 patients did not receive their allocated surgery (ventral: n = 1; dorsal: n = 4). One-year SF-36 PCS mean improvement was not significantly different between ventral surgery (5.9 points) and dorsal surgery (6.2 points) (estimated mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −2.6 to 3.1; P = .86). Of 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. Rates of complications in the ventral and dorsal surgery groups, respectively, were 48% vs 24% (difference, 24%; 95% CI, 8.7%-38.5%; P = .002) and included dysphagia (41% vs 0%), new neurological deficit (2% vs 9%), reoperations (6% vs 4%), and readmissions within 30 days (0% vs 7%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing cervical spinal surgery, a ventral surgical approach did not significantly improve patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year compared with outcomes after a dorsal surgical approach.

Patient navigation improves biennial mammography rates for inner city, low income, minority populations.