| Course | BUSI 619 Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making (BUSI619) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 3 |
| Assignment | Literature Matrix Part 2 |
| Paper type | Literature matrix of primary research |
| Length | about 460 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a second literature matrix on the provided template evaluating at least 5 more primary research articles on 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 3 in Liberty's published BUSI 619 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 619 Week 3
Literature Matrix Part 2: Who Benefits Most From Patient Navigation, and Does It Still Work When Paired With Mailed Outreach?
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 619: Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making
Literature Matrix Part 2
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The reviewer's organization is a composite; the five primary research articles in the matrix are real.
Literature Matrix Part 2: Who Benefits Most From Patient Navigation, and Does It Still Work When Paired With Mailed Outreach?
Purpose of Part 2
Part 1 established that patient navigation shortens time to diagnostic resolution, usually after a lag of three to six months, in mostly low-income and minority populations. It left two questions open: whether particular patients benefit more than others, and whether navigation still adds value in newer programs that combine it with other outreach. I selected five primary studies that address those questions, keeping the same columns so all ten studies can be compared. As Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2015) advise, I treated secondary analyses of trial data as primary research but labeled them clearly, since they answer different questions than the original trials and sit lower in the hierarchy of evidence for causal claims about subgroups.
Literature Matrix
| Citation | Purpose | Design and sample | Intervention | Outcome measure | Key findings | Limitations and level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whitley et al. (2017) | Test whether comorbidities change navigation's effect | Secondary analysis of program trial data; 6,349 patients | Navigation versus usual care | Time to resolution by Charlson score | Score of 2 or more delayed resolution; navigation helped this group most | Skewed comorbidity data; level II-III |
| DeSalvo et al. (2018) | Test navigation for adults 65 and older | Secondary analysis of Ohio group-randomized trial; 862 patients, 67 aged 65 or older | Navigation versus usual care | Time to resolution | Six-month resolution rate 127% higher with navigation for older adults | Small older subgroup; level II-III |
| Krok-Schoen et al. (2015) | Compare clinic types and patient factors | Analysis of Ohio trial data; 862 patients in 18 clinics | Navigation, adjusted for arm | Time to resolution | Health center patients resolved 39% more slowly before adjustment; difference explained by insurance, education and age | Observational comparison; level III |
| Plascak et al. (2014) | Examine neighborhood and access factors | Multilevel analysis; 801 women in 285 census tracts | Navigation assigned by clinic | Time to resolution | Longer resolution with greater neighborhood deprivation | Single city; level III |
| Reuland et al. (2024) | Test mailed stool test outreach with navigation | Pragmatic randomized trial; 4,002 patients at 12 health center sites | Mailed tests plus navigation to colonoscopy after positive results | Screening completion; follow-up colonoscopy | Screening 30.0% vs 9.7%; colonoscopy after positive test 68.8% vs 44.4% | Few positive tests; follow-up difference not significant; level II |
Themes Emerging Across Both Matrices
Three themes now organize the evidence. The first is who benefits most. Navigation helped most where follow-up was hardest: patients with several chronic conditions in the Whitley et al. (2017) analysis, older adults in the DeSalvo et al. (2018) analysis and, from Part 1, the program sites where usual care left patients waiting longest. The second is what slows resolution regardless of navigation. Krok-Schoen et al. (2015) found that insurance, education and age, not clinic type itself, explained slower resolution at health centers, and Plascak et al. (2014) tied longer delays to neighborhood deprivation. Navigation works on top of these barriers but does not remove them, so a program may also need transportation help or interpreter services. The third is how navigation fits within broader programs. Reuland et al. (2024) embedded navigation in centralized mailed outreach and raised screening completion from 9.7% to 30.0%, with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive test at 68.8% versus 44.4%, though the small number of positive tests left that last difference statistically uncertain.
The evidence is beginning to say not only whether navigation works but for whom it works best, which is the question a budget-limited system most needs answered.
Gaps to Carry Forward
The matrix also exposes limits in the evidence that a decision maker should not ignore. None of the ten studies reports the cost of navigation per patient resolved, and few follow patients beyond the diagnostic phase to stage at diagnosis or survival. The introduction in Module/Week 4 should acknowledge both gaps. Most studies were also conducted between 2007 and 2012, before telehealth scheduling, patient portals and text reminders became common, so the size of navigation's effect today may differ. The 2024 trial partly answers that concern, since it delivered navigation by telephone from a central team, but it measured colonoscopy completion rather than time to resolution, so its results are not directly comparable to the earlier trials. For our system, that means a local pilot with careful measurement would still add information the published studies cannot supply, especially about which of our clinics and patient groups would gain the most.
References
DeSalvo, J. M., Young, G. S., Krok-Schoen, J. L., & Paskett, E. D. (2018). Characterizing time to diagnostic resolution after an abnormal cancer screening exam in older adult participants in the Ohio Patient Navigation Research Program. Journal of Aging and Health, 30(8), 1284-1304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264317715184
Krok-Schoen, J. L., Kurta, M. L., Weier, R. C., Young, G. S., Carey, A. B., Tatum, C. M., & Paskett, E. D. (2015). Clinic type and patient characteristics affecting time to resolution after an abnormal cancer-screening exam. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 24(1), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0692
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Plascak, J. J., Llanos, A. A., Pennell, M. L., Weier, R. C., & Paskett, E. D. (2014). Neighborhood factors associated with time to resolution following an abnormal breast or cervical cancer screening test. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 23(12), 2819-2828. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0348
Reuland, D. S., O'Leary, M. C., Crockett, S. D., Farr, D. E., Ferrari, R. M., Malo, T. L., Moore, A. A., Randolph, C. M., Ratner, S., Stradtman, L. R., Stylianou, C., Su, K., Tan, X., Tang, V., Wheeler, S. B., & Brenner, A. T. (2024). Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach in federally qualified health centers: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(11), e2446693. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46693
Whitley, E. M., Raich, P. C., Dudley, D. J., Freund, K. M., Paskett, E. D., Patierno, S. R., Simon, M., Warren-Mears, V., & Snyder, F. R. (2017). Relation of comorbidities and patient navigation with the time to diagnostic resolution after abnormal cancer screening. Cancer, 123(2), 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30316
What the BUSI 619 Week 3 instructions ask
Module/Week 3 of BUSI 619 is one of the heavier weeks: chapters 7 and 8 of Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, four presentations, two websites, two discussion forums, Forums 3 and 4, and Literature Matrix Part 2. The second matrix repeats the first: students use the provided template to evaluate at least five more primary research articles tied to their PICO question. Part 2 works best when the new articles fill gaps the first matrix revealed, rather than adding five more studies of the same kind, because the synthesis due in Module/Week 5 needs evidence on themes, not only volume. Keeping the same columns and wording as Part 1 makes the two matrices read as one evidence table when the final review is written.
How this BUSI 619 Week 3 example is built
A brief note explains how the five articles were chosen to answer questions left open by Part 1, chiefly whether patient characteristics change the effect of navigation and whether navigation still helps in newer, combined programs. The matrix keeps Part 1's seven columns. Four rows come from secondary analyses of the Patient Navigation Research Program, which use trial data to compare subgroups, and one row is a 2024 pragmatic randomized trial. Below the matrix, a short reading identifies three themes that will organize the synthesis: who benefits most, what slows resolution regardless of navigation and how navigation fits within broader outreach. A closing note lists what the evidence still lacks, such as cost data and long-term outcomes, for the introduction due next week.
BUSI 619 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
The second literature matrix in BUSI 619 is usually assessed on the same criteria as the first: five or more relevant primary research articles, complete and consistent columns, honest appraisal of design and limits and correct APA references. Faculty also reward a Part 2 that builds on Part 1, filling identified gaps and showing how the evidence base is taking shape. Secondary analyses of trial data count as primary research because they report original analyses of study data, but students should label them accurately rather than calling them trials. A short reading that names emerging themes shows the student is preparing for synthesis rather than only collecting articles. Consistent terminology across both matrices is a mark of careful work.
BUSI 619 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Reread your Part 1 notes and list the questions it left open. Search for studies that answer those questions, such as subgroup analyses, studies in different settings or newer interventions. Confirm each article reports original data. Use exactly the same columns and terms as Part 1 so the two matrices can be combined later. Be precise about design: a randomized trial, a secondary analysis of trial data and an observational cohort are different levels of evidence. After the matrix, write a paragraph naming two or three themes you see across all ten studies, since those themes will become the headings of your synthesis. Keep the reference list in APA format with DOIs.
Related BUSI 619 sample papers
Other BUSI 619 weeks
- BUSI 619 Week 1: PICO Assignment
- BUSI 619 Week 2: Literature Matrix Part 1
- 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 3: Discussion Board Forum 3
- BUSI 523 Week 1: Discussion Board Forum 1 Thread
- BUSI 528 Week 3: Market Segmentation Paper
- BUSI 611 Week 3: Discussion Board Forum 3
BUSI 619 Week 3 questions, answered
What is BUSI 619 Literature Matrix Part 2?
A 100-point Module/Week 3 assignment that repeats the matrix exercise with at least five more primary research articles, building the evidence base for the literature review.
Where can I find a free BUSI 619 Week 3 sample paper?
This page presents a complete BUSI 619 Week 3 literature matrix of five more patient navigation studies, with themes for the synthesis and APA references.
Do secondary analyses of trials count as primary research?
Generally yes, because they report original analyses of study data, but they should be labeled as secondary analyses rather than as new trials in the design column.
Does patient navigation help patients with several chronic conditions?
A secondary analysis of 6,349 patients found those with a comorbidity score of 2 or more had longer delays, and navigation reduced delays most for that group.
What else is due in BUSI 619 Module/Week 3?
Two forums, numbers 3 and 4, fall in the same module/week, which also assigns chapters 7 and 8, four presentations and two 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 3 sample · All BUSI 619 weeks · All courses