The Friend to Friend plus Patient Navigation Program (FTF+PN) aims to build an effective, sustainable infrastructure to increase breast and cervical screening rates for underserved women in rural Texas. The objective of this paper is to identify factors that (1) distinguish participants who chose patient navigation (PN) services from those who did not (non-PN) and (2) were associated with receiving a mammogram or Papanicolaou (Pap) test. This prospective study analyzed data collected from 2689 FTF+PN participants aged 18-99 years from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015 who self-identified as African American (AA), Latina, and non-Hispanic white (NHW). Women who were younger, AA or Latina, had less than some college education, attended a FTF+PN event because of the cost of screening or were told they needed a screening, and who reported a barrier to screening had higher odds of being a PN participant. Women who were PN participants and had more contacts with program staff had greater odds of receiving a mammogram and a Pap compared with their reference groups. Latina English-speaking women had lower odds of receiving a mammogram and a Pap compared with NHW women and Latina Spanish-speaking women had higher odds of receiving a Pap test compared with NHW women. Women with greater need chose PN services, and PN participants had higher odds of getting a screening compared with women who did not choose PN services. These results demonstrate the success of PN in screening women in rural Texas but also that racial/ethnic disparities in screening remain.

ObjectiveThis study assessed differences in employment outcomes among cancer survivors using data from a nationally representative sample.MethodsThe 2011 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data and the 2011 MEPS Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement representing 3,360,465 people in the US population were analyzed to evaluate factors associated with unemployment among cancer survivors during the 5 years following diagnosis and treatment. The sample included adults 1) diagnosed with cancer within 5 years prior to survey completion and 2) engaged in paid employment since diagnosis. Individuals diagnosed with nonmelanoma skin cancer (n=33) were excluded from analyses.ResultsData of 221 cancer survivors were used to identify factors associated with employment status at the time respondents were employed (n=155) vs unemployed (n=66). Results of bivariate analyses indicated that unemployed survivors were older, more likely to be women, more likely to be uninsured at the time of cancer diagnosis, and to report lower incomes than cancer survivors who continue to be employed. Unemployed survivors were more likely than employed survivors to have had anxiety about being forced to retire or quit early when they were employed because of cancer and to report cancer-related interference with physical and mental aspects of their job tasks; unemployed survivors also took less paid time off and were less likely to change to a flexible job schedule when they were employed. In multiple logistic regression analyses, worry about being forced to retire (protective), worry that cancer recurrence will interfere with home or work responsibilities (risk), and change to a flexible work schedule (risk) following cancer diagnosis were associated with unemployment after controlling for demographic differences between employed and unemployed cancer survivors.ConclusionFindings of this study highlight the extent to which the challenges of managing the cancer–work interface create challenges to employment among cancer survivors and may lead to long-term unemployment among cancer survivors. Future studies should evaluate the strategies that the survivors could use to manage the cancer–work interface during cancer treatment to attain medical, psychological, social, and employment outcomes.

No abstract

This study aimed to determine if the current health-related quality of life (HRQoL) tools created for survivors of testicular cancer are collecting the highest quality of data via a two-step methodological critique of both the seminal studies that produced a survivor of testicular cancer HRQoL tool (Phase 1) and the actual tool itself (Phase 2). It is the goal of this current article to present and discuss Phase 1. A systematic review aimed to assess the methodological quality of studies conducted to create instruments used to measure survivors of testicular cancer HRQoL. Five reviewers independently assessed each study with the 20-item Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Inter-rater agreement and Fleiss’ kappa was also assessed to ensure consistency in reported scores. Assessments for the EORTC QLQ-TC 26 and CAYA-T studies were low (AXIS 52.5%; IRA 95%; κ = 0.779) and fair (AXIS 65%; IRA 80%; κ = 0.599), respectively. Critical appraisal of the scales included issues within the three core AXIS domains. Primary concerns related to sampling methodology and the lack of a qualitative component of their core conceptual development phase. Both reviewed seminal studies have significant methodological concerns that question the tools’ quality. Next steps include extensive appraisal of the psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ TC-26 and the CAYA-T to complete the comprehensive review. Accurate and reliable data are necessary to understand survivor of testicular cancer HRQoL and assist in building the bridge of communication between health care professionals and survivors to help to improve patient outcomes.

Reviews have assessed studies of breast and cervical cancer screening access and utilization for rural women, but none analyze interventions to increase screening rates. A mixed methods literature search identified studies of breast and/or cervical cancer prevention education and patient navigation interventions for rural women. Rural areas need greater implementation and evaluation of screening interventions as these services address the challenges of delivering patient-centered cancer care to un-/underserved communities. The lack of intervention studies on breast and cervical cancer education and patient navigation programs compared to urban studies highlights the need for validation of these programs among diverse, rural populations.