While implementation science is driven by theory, most implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) do not address issues of power, inequality, and reflexivity that are pivotal to achieving health equity. Theories used in anthropology address these issues effectively and could complement prevailing implementation science theories and constructs. We propose three broad areas of theory that complement and extend existing TMF in implementation science to advance health equity. First, theories of postcoloniality and reflexivity foreground attention to the role of power in knowledge production and to the ways that researchers and interventionists may perpetuate the inequalities shaping health. Second, theories of structural violence and intersectionality can help us to better understand the unequal burden of health disparities in the population, thereby encouraging researchers to think beyond single interventions to initiate partnerships that can impact overlapping health vulnerabilities and influence the upstream causes of vulnerability. Finally, theories of policy and governance encourage us to examine the social-political forces of the “outer context” crucial for implementation and sustainability. The incorporation of critical theories could enhance implementation science and foster necessary reflexivity among implementation scientists. We contend that a theoretically critical implementation science will promote better science and, more importantly, support progress toward health equity.

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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13561-018-0196-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Survivorship care plans (SCPs)-documents intended to improve care for cancer survivors who have completed active treatment-are required, yet implementation is poor. We sought to understand SCP implementation in cancer programs in the USA with the objective of identifying opportunities for improvement. We recruited cancer care providers in the USA via several cancer care networks to participate in a survey regarding SCP implementation. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. Three hundred ninety-five providers from diverse cancer programs in 47 states and Washington, DC responded to the survey. The timing of SCP implementation varied across and within cancer programs, with approximately 40% of respondents reporting developing SCPs more than 3 months after primary treatment or adjuvant therapy completion. Nurse navigators were responsible for 48-58% of each stage of SCP implementation. Processes that could have been automated often occurred in-person or via phone and vice versa. Respondents reported spending more than 2 h per SCP to complete all stages of implementation, of which less than a third was reimbursed by third-party payers. We identified several opportunities for improving SCP implementation, including broadening the base of responsibility, optimizing modes of communication, decreasing the time required and increasing the funding available, and limiting variation in SCP implementation across and within cancer programs. Future work should assess the influence of approaches to SCP implementation on desired outcomes.

The Consensus Statement on Future Directions for the Behavioral and Social Sciences in Oral Health (Consensus Statement) is a transformational contribution to oral health research synthesizing a wide array of conceptual, methodological, and disciplinary concerns and offering strategies to improve scientific inquiry. The Consensus Statement explicates global oral health equity as a foundational concern of our field. Given this context, a key concern is missing from the statement: oppression!