| Course | BUSI 619 Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making (BUSI619) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 2 |
| Assignment | Literature Matrix Part 1 |
| Paper type | Literature matrix of primary research |
| Length | about 479 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a literature matrix on the provided template evaluating at least 5 primary research articles that address the student's PICO question, in current APA format |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 100 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 2 in Liberty's published BUSI 619 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 619 Week 2
Literature Matrix Part 1: Five Trials of Patient Navigation After an Abnormal Cancer Screening Result
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 619: Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making
Literature Matrix Part 1
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The reviewer's organization is a composite; the five primary research articles in the matrix are real.
Literature Matrix Part 1: Five Trials of Patient Navigation After an Abnormal Cancer Screening Result
Question and Search
The matrix serves the Module/Week 1 PICO question, which asks whether safety-net patients whose mammogram, Pap test or stool test comes back abnormal reach a diagnosis sooner when a navigator guides them than when they receive ordinary follow-up. I searched PubMed and CINAHL for patient navigation combined with abnormal screening and diagnostic resolution, then kept the five trials whose primary outcome was the interval to resolution.
Appraisal Approach
Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2015) recommend rapid critical appraisal with a consistent set of questions for every study: can the findings be trusted, how large are they and do they apply to the patients the organization actually serves? I applied those questions to each article and recorded the answers in the same columns so the studies could be compared side by side. For design, I used the textbook's hierarchy of evidence, in which well-designed randomized controlled trials sit just below systematic reviews of such trials. I recorded the main effect as a hazard ratio where the authors reported one, since a hazard ratio above 1 means patients in the navigation group reached resolution faster. Where a study reported only significance levels, I described the direction and timing of the effect instead of inventing a number. A matrix is only useful if every row is filled in the same way, because comparison is the whole point of building it.
Literature Matrix
| Citation | Purpose | Design and sample | Intervention | Outcome measure | Key findings | Limitations and level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freund et al. (2014) | Test navigation against usual care across the national research program | Pooled analysis of controlled trials at multiple centers; 10,521 patients with abnormal screens, 73% minority | Navigators addressing individual barriers from abnormal result to resolution | Time to diagnostic resolution; time to treatment | No benefit in first 90 days; benefit from 91 to 365 days (aHR 1.51) | Centers differed in design; level II |
| Raich et al. (2012) | Test lay navigators in a safety-net system | Individually randomized trial; 993 patients at Denver Health | Lay navigators for breast, colorectal and prostate abnormalities | Time to resolution | Shorter time to resolution with navigation overall | One site; benefit not seen for highest-risk breast findings; level II |
| Paskett et al. (2012) | Test the American Cancer Society navigation model | Group-randomized trial; 862 patients in 18 Ohio clinics | Navigators assigned by clinic | Time to resolution | Effect emerged at six months; resolution rate 65% higher by 15 months | Clinic-level randomization; level II |
| Lee et al. (2013) | Test navigation for breast abnormalities | Cluster randomized trial; 1,039 patients in 10 Tampa Bay clinics | Navigation from abnormality to diagnosis | Time to resolution | No effect first three months; aHR 2.8 after three months | Lagged effect; level II |
| Lee et al. (2014) | Test navigation for colorectal abnormalities | Cluster randomized trial; 193 patients in 10 clinics | Navigation from colorectal abnormality to diagnosis | Time to resolution | Marginal time-varying benefit (aHR 1.15); no effect until 12 months | Small sample; level II |
Reading the Matrix
Three patterns stand out. First, every study found navigation helpful, but the size of the effect varied widely, from a marginal hazard ratio of 1.15 for colorectal abnormalities in Tampa to 2.8 for breast abnormalities after three months. Second, the timing of the benefit was strikingly consistent. Freund et al. (2014) found no benefit in the first 90 days and a clear benefit from 91 to 365 days, Paskett et al. (2012) saw the effect emerge at six months and both Tampa trials described a lagged effect (Lee et al., 2013, 2014). Navigation seems to matter less for patients who would have completed follow-up promptly anyway and more for those who would otherwise drift. For an administrator, that pattern suggests measuring a navigation program over a full year rather than judging it at 90 days, when the early results may look disappointing. Third, the populations were overwhelmingly low-income, uninsured or minority patients, which fits a safety-net system but may limit generalization to insured populations.
The matrix also shows a limitation that runs through the evidence: most trials randomized clinics or centers rather than individual patients, and only Raich et al. (2012) randomized individuals. Cluster designs reduce contamination between groups but can leave differences between clinics that affect results.
Questions for Part 2
The second matrix should explore whether patient characteristics, such as comorbidities, age, neighborhood deprivation or clinic type, change how well navigation works, and whether newer programs that combine outreach with navigation show similar effects. Those questions matter for a system deciding which patients should receive a navigator first.
References
Freund, K. M., Battaglia, T. A., Calhoun, E., Darnell, J. S., Dudley, D. J., Fiscella, K., Hare, M. L., LaVerda, N., Lee, J., Levine, P., Murray, D. M., Patierno, S. R., Raich, P. C., Roetzheim, R. G., Simon, M., Snyder, F. R., Warren-Mears, V., Whitley, E. M., Winters, P., . . . Paskett, E. D. (2014). Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: The Patient Navigation Research Program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 106(6), dju115. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju115
Lee, J. H., Fulp, W., Wells, K. J., Meade, C. D., Calcano, E., & Roetzheim, R. (2013). Patient navigation and time to diagnostic resolution: Results for a cluster randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of patient navigation among patients with breast cancer screening abnormalities, Tampa, FL. PLOS ONE, 8(9), e74542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074542
Lee, J. H., Fulp, W., Wells, K. J., Meade, C. D., Calcano, E., & Roetzheim, R. (2014). Effect of patient navigation on time to diagnostic resolution among patients with colorectal cancer-related abnormalities. Journal of Cancer Education, 29(1), 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-013-0561-2
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Paskett, E. D., Katz, M. L., Post, D. M., Pennell, M. L., Young, G. S., Seiber, E. E., Harrop, J. P., DeGraffinreid, C. R., Tatum, C. M., Dean, J. A., & Murray, D. M. (2012). The Ohio Patient Navigation Research Program: Does the American Cancer Society patient navigation model improve time to resolution in patients with abnormal screening tests? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 21(10), 1620-1628. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0523
Raich, P. C., Whitley, E. M., Thorland, W., Valverde, P., & Fairclough, D. (2012). Patient navigation improves cancer diagnostic resolution: An individually randomized clinical trial in an underserved population. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 21(10), 1629-1638. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0513
What the BUSI 619 Week 2 instructions ask
BUSI 619 schedules the first matrix in its second module/week, together with chapters 4 and 5 of Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, three presentations, two websites and Discussion Board Forum 2. Students use the provided matrix template to evaluate at least five primary research articles related to their PICO question from Module/Week 1. Part 2 in Module/Week 3 repeats the exercise with five more articles, so together the matrices build the evidence base for the introduction, synthesis and final review. Because the chapters assigned this week cover finding and critically appraising evidence, each row should show judgment about the study's design and limits, not only a summary of its abstract.
How this BUSI 619 Week 2 example is built
A two-sentence restatement of the PICO question and the search behind the five articles comes first. Next comes the matrix itself, a row for each study under columns headed citation, purpose, design and sample, intervention, outcome measure, key findings and limitations or level of evidence. Every study is a primary trial or a pooled analysis of trial data, which the matrix makes visible in the design column. Below the matrix, a brief reading compares the studies on three points, the size of the navigation effect, its timing and the populations that benefited most, and notes questions the second matrix should answer, such as whether patient characteristics change the effect. The page ends with the APA reference list.
BUSI 619 Week 2 grading rubric: where the points go
Literature matrices in BUSI 619 are generally graded on whether all five articles are primary research relevant to the PICO question, whether each column is completed accurately and consistently, whether the appraisal of design and limitations shows critical thinking and whether references follow current APA style. Faculty also look for consistency across rows, since a matrix is meant to allow comparison: the same outcome described in the same terms, sample sizes reported for every study and limitations stated honestly. A short commentary that notices patterns across studies shows readiness for the synthesis later in the course. Swapping in review articles where primary research belongs costs more points than any other slip.
BUSI 619 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
Open the template and decide what you will write in each column before reading the first article, so every row is comparable. Read each article's methods section, not just the abstract, to confirm the design and sample size and to find limitations the authors admit. Record the main outcome in the same units across studies when you can, such as hazard ratios or percentages resolved. Use the level-of-evidence framework from the week's chapters to label each design. After filling the matrix, write a few sentences on patterns and gaps, since those notes will save time in Module/Week 5. Check every reference against APA rules, including DOIs.
Related BUSI 619 sample papers
Other BUSI 619 weeks
- BUSI 619 Week 1: PICO Assignment
- BUSI 619 Week 3: Literature Matrix Part 2
- BUSI 619 Week 4: Literature Review Introduction
- BUSI 619 Week 5: Literature Review Synthesis
- BUSI 619 Week 6: Discussion Board Forum 7
- BUSI 619 Week 7: Literature Review Final
- BUSI 619 Week 8: Literature Review Presentation
More MS in Healthcare Administration sample papers
- BUSI 511 Week 2: Discussion Board Forum 2
- BUSI 523 Week 2: Discussion Board Forum 1 Replies
- BUSI 528 Week 2: Marketing Application Paper
- BUSI 611 Week 2: Discussion Board Forum 2
BUSI 619 Week 2 questions, answered
What is BUSI 619 Literature Matrix Part 1?
Worth 100 points, this second-week task asks students to evaluate at least five primary research articles related to their PICO question using the course's matrix template.
Where can I find a free BUSI 619 Week 2 sample paper?
This page shows a complete BUSI 619 Week 2 literature matrix of five patient navigation trials, with a reading of patterns across the studies and APA references.
What columns does a literature matrix usually include?
Common columns are the citation, purpose, design and sample, intervention, outcome measures, key findings and limitations or level of evidence, filled in the same way for every study.
Did patient navigation shorten time to diagnosis in trials?
Yes, in several trials, though usually after a lag; the multisite program found a benefit from 91 to 365 days after the abnormal result but not in the first 90 days.
What else is due in BUSI 619 Module/Week 2?
Discussion Board Forum 2 is due with the matrix, along with readings from chapters 4 and 5, three presentations and two assigned websites.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 619 Week 2 sample · All BUSI 619 weeks · All courses