Patient Navigator Intervention to Improve Palliative Care Outcomes for Hispanic Patients With Serious Noncancer Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Disparities persist across the trajectory of serious illness, including at the end of life. Patient navigation has been shown to reduce disparities and improve outcomes for underserved populations. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a lay patient navigator intervention, Apoyo con Cariño, in improving palliative care outcomes among Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter randomized clinical trial that took place across academic, nonprofit, safety-net, and community health care systems in urban, rural, and mountain/frontier regions of Colorado from January 2017 to January 2021. Self-identifying Hispanic adults with serious noncancer medical illness and limited prognosis were recruited. Data were collected and analyzed from July 2022 to July 2023. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intervention group received 5 home visits from a bilingual, bicultural lay patient navigator; participants randomized to control received care as usual. Both groups received culturally tailored educational materials. Investigators/outcome accessors remained blinded to participant assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in score from baseline to 3 months on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) General quality of life (QOL) scale (primary outcome), Advance Care Planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and FACIT Spiritual Well-Being subscale; at 6 months, advance directive (AD) documentation; and at 46 months or death, hospice utilization and length of stay, as well as aggressiveness of care at end of life. Results: Of 209 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.3] years; 108 [51.7%] male), 105 patients were randomized to control and 104 patients to the intervention. There were no statistically significant differences in the change in mean (SD) QOL score between the intervention and control groups (5.0 [16.5] vs 4.3 [15.5]; P = .75). Participants in the intervention group, compared with the control group, had statistically significant greater increases in mean (SD) ACP engagement (0.8 [1.3] vs 0.1 [1.4]; P < .001) and were more likely to have a documented AD (62 of 104 [59.6%] vs 28 of 105 [26.9%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean (SD) change in pain intensity score (0-10) between patients in the intervention group compared with control (-0.4 [2.6] vs -0.5 [2.8]; P = .79), nor pain interference (-0.2 [3.7] vs -0.4 [3.7]; P = .71). Patients receiving the intervention were more likely to be referred to hospice compared with patients receiving control (19 of 43 patients [44.2%] vs 7 of 33 patients [21.2%]; P = .04) and less likely to receive aggressive care at end of life (27 of 42 patients [64.3%] vs 28 of 33 patients [84.8%]; P = .046). Conclusion and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, a culturally tailored patient navigator intervention did not improve QOL for patients. However, the intervention did increase ACP engagement, AD documentation, and hospice utilization in Hispanic persons with serious medical illness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181750.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".