Fax: (773) 795-7398
Supplement
Establishing common cost measures to evaluate the economic value of patient navigation programs†‡§
Article first published online: 20 JUL 2011
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26268
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society
Issue

Cancer
Supplement: National Patient Navigation Leadership Summit (NPNLS): Measuring the Impact and Potential of Patient Navigation, Supplement to Cancer
Volume 117, Issue Supplement 15, pages 3616–3623, 1 August 2011
Additional Information
How to Cite
Whitley, E., Valverde, P., Wells, K., Williams, L., Teschner, T. and Shih, Y.-C. T. (2011), Establishing common cost measures to evaluate the economic value of patient navigation programs. Cancer, 117: 3616–3623. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26268
- †
The articles in this supplement are based on presentations at the “National Patient Navigator Leadership Summit”; March 23-24, 2010; Atlanta, GA.
- ‡
The opinions or views expressed in this supplement are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or recommendations of the publisher, the editors, the University of Illinois at Chicago, the American Cancer Society, or the Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention.
- §
National Patient Navigator Leadership Summit (NPNLS): Measuring the Impact and Potential of Patient Navigation, Supplement to Cancer.
- ¶
Fax: (773) 795-7398
Publication History
- Issue published online: 20 JUL 2011
- Article first published online: 20 JUL 2011
- Manuscript Accepted: 6 MAY 2011
- Manuscript Revised: 2 MAY 2011
- Manuscript Received: 24 FEB 2011
REFERENCES
- 1. Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality. J Cancer Educ. 2006; 21: S11-14.
- 2, . Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: current practices and approaches. Cancer. 2005; 104: 848-855.
- 3, , , et al. Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science? Cancer. 2008; 113: 1999-2010.
- 4, , , et al. Factors associated with patient navigators' time spent on reducing barriers to cancer treatment. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008; 100: 1290-1297.
- 5, , , et al. Understanding the processes of patient navigation to reduce disparities in cancer care: perspectives of trained navigators from the field. J Cancer Educ. 2011; 26: 111-120.
- 6, , , et al. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cancer patient navigation programs: conceptual and practical issues. Cancer. 2009; 115: 5394-5403.
- 7, . A primer for policy analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 1978.
- 8, , , , . Economic analysis of a child vaccination project among Asian Americans in Philadelphia, Pa. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001; 155: 909-914.
- 9, , . Costs. In: HaddixAC, TeutschSM, CorsoPS, eds. Prevention Effectiveness, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003: 53-76.
- 10, , , et al. Collecting direct non-health care and time cost data: application to screening and diagnosis of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26: 265-272.
- 11, , , et al. Estimating the cost of informal caregiving for elderly patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 3219-3225.
- 12, . Time costs associated with informal caregiving for cancer survivors. Cancer. 2009; 115( 18 suppl): 4362-4373.
- 13, , , . A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004; 22: 225-244.
- 14, , , . A national survey of health-related work limitations among employed persons in the United States. Disabil Rehabil. 2000; 22: 225-232.
- 15, , . The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993; 4: 353-365.
- 16, , , . Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
- 17, . Economic evaluations of medical care interventions for cancer patients: how, why, and what does it mean? CA Cancer J Clin. 2008; 58: 231-244.
- 18, , , . Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
- 19, , , et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices—budget impact analysis. Value Health. 2007; 10: 336-347.

1097-0142/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=ca681f5719430b26e1bc15e9ea4c9fc0a7110104)
1097-0142/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=8142566facf7e76aef9be6c51162a2e920b3b9f9)