Background: The global incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are rising annually, posing a severe threat to public health. Studies have shown that patient navigation can significantly improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening, thereby reducing incidence and mortality rates. This review aims to summarize the existing evidence on the application of patient navigation in colorectal cancer screening, to provide an evidence-based foundation for subsequent research and clinical practice. Methods: Based on Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodological framework, a search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and SinoMed for relevant studies published from database inception to May 20, 2025. Results: 25 studies were included. The findings indicate that navigator types primarily include trained professional navigators, medical navigators, and novel navigators. Service delivery methods were diverse, with telephone navigation being the primary mode, often combined with SMS, face-to-face, email, and other multi-modal collaborative interventions. Navigation service content encompassed six main themes: colorectal cancer education, barrier assessment and resolution, guidance and reminders for guaiac fecal occult blood test/fecal immunochemical test and bowel preparation, colonoscopy process management, and post-examination follow-up. Efficacy evaluation demonstrated that patient navigation overall enhances colorectal cancer screening adherence, although heterogeneity existed in outcomes such as bowel preparation quality and patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Current patient navigation services for colorectal cancer screening have formed a relatively mature intervention framework. However, there remains room for optimization in areas like the balance of service content and support for non-medical barriers. Future practice can draw upon existing research to implement full-cycle, culturally adapted, and cost-effective patient navigation interventions tailored to national contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xia et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: