Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program
Background The Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical trials (London, England) England), 2012-04, Vol.9 (2), p.176-187 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 187 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 176 |
container_title | Clinical trials (London, England) |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Roetzheim, Richard G Freund, Karen M Corle, Don K Murray, David M Snyder, Frederick R Kronman, Andrea C Jean-Pierre, Pascal Raich, Peter C Holden, Alan EC Darnell, Julie S Warren-Mears, Victoria Patierno, Steven |
description | Background The Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual projects. There is no agreed-upon prospective methodology, however, for analyzing combined data arising from different study designs. Expert opinions were thus solicited from the members of the PNRP Design and Analysis Committee.
Purpose To review possible methodologies for analyzing combined data arising from heterogeneous study designs.
Methods The Design and Analysis Committee critically reviewed the pros and cons of five potential methods for analyzing combined PNRP project data. The conclusions were based on simple consensus. The five approaches reviewed included the following: (1) analyzing and reporting each project separately, (2) combining data from all projects and performing an individual-level analysis, (3) pooling data from projects having similar study designs, (4) analyzing pooled data using a prospective meta-analytic technique, and (5) analyzing pooled data utilizing a novel simulated group-randomized design.
Results Methodologies varied in their ability to incorporate data from all PNRP projects, to appropriately account for differing study designs, and to accommodate differing project sample sizes.
Limitations The conclusions reached were based on expert opinion and not derived from actual analyses performed.
Conclusions The ability to analyze pooled data arising from differing study designs may provide pertinent information to inform programmatic, budgetary, and policy perspectives. Multisite community-based research may not lend itself well to the more stringent explanatory and pragmatic standards of a randomized controlled trial design. Given our growing interest in community-based population research, the challenges inherent in the analysis of heterogeneous study design are likely to become more salient. Discussion of the analytic issues faced by the PNRP and the methodological approaches we considered may be of value to other prospective community-based research programs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1740774511433284 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1000402535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1740774511433284</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1000402535</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-abe1eedf36027eca5a3ea08a82ddf9f80cf9422f036d774b1e115ccfdbcd2c803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoWh97VxJw42Y0j0kzdVeKLyi40fVwJ7lpR-ZlMiMW_7yxrSKCq1zCd87l3EPIKWeXnGt9xXXKtE4V56mUIkt3yOjrK9Fayd2fOVUH5DCEF8ZEpjK5Tw6EEFqqTI_Ix7SBahXKQFtHTVsXZYOWWuiBOt_WdIk9-naBDbZDoKEf7IpaDOWiCdcUGgpdV5VRge9QdxVuRP0SaQd9iU1PG3grF3FuG-oxIHizpF109FAfkz0HVcCT7XtEnm9vnmb3yfzx7mE2nScmpusTKJAjWifHTGg0oEAisAwyYa2buIwZN0mFcEyObQxbcORcGeNsYawwGZNH5GLjG_e-Dhj6vC6DwaqCdaqcM8ZSJpRUET3_g760g48nWlOTsRxLpiPFNpTxbQgeXd75sga_ilD-VUz-t5goOdsaD0WN9kfw3UQEkg0QYIG_t_5j-AlWIJez</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1009636307</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Roetzheim, Richard G ; Freund, Karen M ; Corle, Don K ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Frederick R ; Kronman, Andrea C ; Jean-Pierre, Pascal ; Raich, Peter C ; Holden, Alan EC ; Darnell, Julie S ; Warren-Mears, Victoria ; Patierno, Steven</creator><creatorcontrib>Roetzheim, Richard G ; Freund, Karen M ; Corle, Don K ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Frederick R ; Kronman, Andrea C ; Jean-Pierre, Pascal ; Raich, Peter C ; Holden, Alan EC ; Darnell, Julie S ; Warren-Mears, Victoria ; Patierno, Steven ; PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators ; PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</creatorcontrib><description>Background The Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual projects. There is no agreed-upon prospective methodology, however, for analyzing combined data arising from different study designs. Expert opinions were thus solicited from the members of the PNRP Design and Analysis Committee.
Purpose To review possible methodologies for analyzing combined data arising from heterogeneous study designs.
Methods The Design and Analysis Committee critically reviewed the pros and cons of five potential methods for analyzing combined PNRP project data. The conclusions were based on simple consensus. The five approaches reviewed included the following: (1) analyzing and reporting each project separately, (2) combining data from all projects and performing an individual-level analysis, (3) pooling data from projects having similar study designs, (4) analyzing pooled data using a prospective meta-analytic technique, and (5) analyzing pooled data utilizing a novel simulated group-randomized design.
Results Methodologies varied in their ability to incorporate data from all PNRP projects, to appropriately account for differing study designs, and to accommodate differing project sample sizes.
Limitations The conclusions reached were based on expert opinion and not derived from actual analyses performed.
Conclusions The ability to analyze pooled data arising from differing study designs may provide pertinent information to inform programmatic, budgetary, and policy perspectives. Multisite community-based research may not lend itself well to the more stringent explanatory and pragmatic standards of a randomized controlled trial design. Given our growing interest in community-based population research, the challenges inherent in the analysis of heterogeneous study design are likely to become more salient. Discussion of the analytic issues faced by the PNRP and the methodological approaches we considered may be of value to other prospective community-based research programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1740-7745</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1740-7753</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1740774511433284</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22273587</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Epidemiology ; Humans ; Medical screening ; Medicine ; Public health ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data ; Research Design ; United States</subject><ispartof>Clinical trials (London, England), 2012-04, Vol.9 (2), p.176-187</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2012</rights><rights>SAGE Publications © Apr 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-abe1eedf36027eca5a3ea08a82ddf9f80cf9422f036d774b1e115ccfdbcd2c803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-abe1eedf36027eca5a3ea08a82ddf9f80cf9422f036d774b1e115ccfdbcd2c803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1740774511433284$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1740774511433284$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22273587$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roetzheim, Richard G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freund, Karen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corle, Don K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Frederick R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kronman, Andrea C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jean-Pierre, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raich, Peter C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holden, Alan EC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darnell, Julie S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warren-Mears, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patierno, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program</title><title>Clinical trials (London, England)</title><addtitle>Clin Trials</addtitle><description>Background The Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual projects. There is no agreed-upon prospective methodology, however, for analyzing combined data arising from different study designs. Expert opinions were thus solicited from the members of the PNRP Design and Analysis Committee.
Purpose To review possible methodologies for analyzing combined data arising from heterogeneous study designs.
Methods The Design and Analysis Committee critically reviewed the pros and cons of five potential methods for analyzing combined PNRP project data. The conclusions were based on simple consensus. The five approaches reviewed included the following: (1) analyzing and reporting each project separately, (2) combining data from all projects and performing an individual-level analysis, (3) pooling data from projects having similar study designs, (4) analyzing pooled data using a prospective meta-analytic technique, and (5) analyzing pooled data utilizing a novel simulated group-randomized design.
Results Methodologies varied in their ability to incorporate data from all PNRP projects, to appropriately account for differing study designs, and to accommodate differing project sample sizes.
Limitations The conclusions reached were based on expert opinion and not derived from actual analyses performed.
Conclusions The ability to analyze pooled data arising from differing study designs may provide pertinent information to inform programmatic, budgetary, and policy perspectives. Multisite community-based research may not lend itself well to the more stringent explanatory and pragmatic standards of a randomized controlled trial design. Given our growing interest in community-based population research, the challenges inherent in the analysis of heterogeneous study design are likely to become more salient. Discussion of the analytic issues faced by the PNRP and the methodological approaches we considered may be of value to other prospective community-based research programs.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1740-7745</issn><issn>1740-7753</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoWh97VxJw42Y0j0kzdVeKLyi40fVwJ7lpR-ZlMiMW_7yxrSKCq1zCd87l3EPIKWeXnGt9xXXKtE4V56mUIkt3yOjrK9Fayd2fOVUH5DCEF8ZEpjK5Tw6EEFqqTI_Ix7SBahXKQFtHTVsXZYOWWuiBOt_WdIk9-naBDbZDoKEf7IpaDOWiCdcUGgpdV5VRge9QdxVuRP0SaQd9iU1PG3grF3FuG-oxIHizpF109FAfkz0HVcCT7XtEnm9vnmb3yfzx7mE2nScmpusTKJAjWifHTGg0oEAisAwyYa2buIwZN0mFcEyObQxbcORcGeNsYawwGZNH5GLjG_e-Dhj6vC6DwaqCdaqcM8ZSJpRUET3_g760g48nWlOTsRxLpiPFNpTxbQgeXd75sga_ilD-VUz-t5goOdsaD0WN9kfw3UQEkg0QYIG_t_5j-AlWIJez</recordid><startdate>201204</startdate><enddate>201204</enddate><creator>Roetzheim, Richard G</creator><creator>Freund, Karen M</creator><creator>Corle, Don K</creator><creator>Murray, David M</creator><creator>Snyder, Frederick R</creator><creator>Kronman, Andrea C</creator><creator>Jean-Pierre, Pascal</creator><creator>Raich, Peter C</creator><creator>Holden, Alan EC</creator><creator>Darnell, Julie S</creator><creator>Warren-Mears, Victoria</creator><creator>Patierno, Steven</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201204</creationdate><title>Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program</title><author>Roetzheim, Richard G ; Freund, Karen M ; Corle, Don K ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Frederick R ; Kronman, Andrea C ; Jean-Pierre, Pascal ; Raich, Peter C ; Holden, Alan EC ; Darnell, Julie S ; Warren-Mears, Victoria ; Patierno, Steven</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-abe1eedf36027eca5a3ea08a82ddf9f80cf9422f036d774b1e115ccfdbcd2c803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roetzheim, Richard G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freund, Karen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corle, Don K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Frederick R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kronman, Andrea C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jean-Pierre, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raich, Peter C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holden, Alan EC</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darnell, Julie S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warren-Mears, Victoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patierno, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical trials (London, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roetzheim, Richard G</au><au>Freund, Karen M</au><au>Corle, Don K</au><au>Murray, David M</au><au>Snyder, Frederick R</au><au>Kronman, Andrea C</au><au>Jean-Pierre, Pascal</au><au>Raich, Peter C</au><au>Holden, Alan EC</au><au>Darnell, Julie S</au><au>Warren-Mears, Victoria</au><au>Patierno, Steven</au><aucorp>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</aucorp><aucorp>PNRP Design and Analysis Committee for the Patient Navigation Research Program Investigators</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program</atitle><jtitle>Clinical trials (London, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Trials</addtitle><date>2012-04</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>176</spage><epage>187</epage><pages>176-187</pages><issn>1740-7745</issn><eissn>1740-7753</eissn><abstract>Background The Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual projects. There is no agreed-upon prospective methodology, however, for analyzing combined data arising from different study designs. Expert opinions were thus solicited from the members of the PNRP Design and Analysis Committee.
Purpose To review possible methodologies for analyzing combined data arising from heterogeneous study designs.
Methods The Design and Analysis Committee critically reviewed the pros and cons of five potential methods for analyzing combined PNRP project data. The conclusions were based on simple consensus. The five approaches reviewed included the following: (1) analyzing and reporting each project separately, (2) combining data from all projects and performing an individual-level analysis, (3) pooling data from projects having similar study designs, (4) analyzing pooled data using a prospective meta-analytic technique, and (5) analyzing pooled data utilizing a novel simulated group-randomized design.
Results Methodologies varied in their ability to incorporate data from all PNRP projects, to appropriately account for differing study designs, and to accommodate differing project sample sizes.
Limitations The conclusions reached were based on expert opinion and not derived from actual analyses performed.
Conclusions The ability to analyze pooled data arising from differing study designs may provide pertinent information to inform programmatic, budgetary, and policy perspectives. Multisite community-based research may not lend itself well to the more stringent explanatory and pragmatic standards of a randomized controlled trial design. Given our growing interest in community-based population research, the challenges inherent in the analysis of heterogeneous study design are likely to become more salient. Discussion of the analytic issues faced by the PNRP and the methodological approaches we considered may be of value to other prospective community-based research programs.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22273587</pmid><doi>10.1177/1740774511433284</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1740-7745 |
ispartof | Clinical trials (London, England), 2012-04, Vol.9 (2), p.176-187 |
issn | 1740-7745 1740-7753 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1000402535 |
source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE |
subjects | Cancer Clinical trials Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data Data Interpretation, Statistical Epidemiology Humans Medical screening Medicine Public health Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data Research Design United States |
title | Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T13%3A00%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20of%20combined%20data%20from%20heterogeneous%20study%20designs:%20an%20applied%20example%20from%20the%20patient%20navigation%20research%20program&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20trials%20(London,%20England)&rft.au=Roetzheim,%20Richard%20G&rft.aucorp=PNRP%20Design%20and%20Analysis%20Committee%20for%20the%20Patient%20Navigation%20Research%20Program%20Investigators&rft.date=2012-04&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=176&rft.epage=187&rft.pages=176-187&rft.issn=1740-7745&rft.eissn=1740-7753&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1740774511433284&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1000402535%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1009636307&rft_id=info:pmid/22273587&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1740774511433284&rfr_iscdi=true |