| Course | BUSI 619 Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making (BUSI619) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 4 |
| Assignment | Literature Review Introduction |
| Paper type | Literature review introduction |
| Length | about 609 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: an introduction to a literature review of 500 to 800 words in current APA format with at least 2 references to primary research articles, plus a title page and reference list |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 85 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 4 in Liberty's published BUSI 619 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 619 Week 4
Introduction to a Literature Review: Patient Navigation and Time to Diagnosis After an Abnormal Cancer Screening Result
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 619: Quality Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making
Literature Review Introduction
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The health system and its follow-up figures are composites; the textbook and every research article cited are real.
Introduction to a Literature Review: Patient Navigation and Time to Diagnosis After an Abnormal Cancer Screening Result
Introduction
Cancer screening saves lives only when abnormal results lead to a timely diagnosis. In our safety-net health system, with its fourteen clinics and roughly 180,000 patients, fewer than two in three patients with a worrying mammogram, Pap result or stool test had a diagnosis within three months last year, and roughly one in seven still had no recorded follow-up twelve months on. Those delays fall hardest on patients who are uninsured, who speak limited English or who live far from the hospital's imaging and endoscopy services. For a patient with an early cancer, months of delay can mean a later stage at diagnosis and harder treatment. For a patient whose finding proves benign, the delay means months of needless fear.
Two terms anchor this review. Diagnostic resolution is the point at which follow-up testing confirms either cancer or a benign finding after an abnormal screening result. Patient navigation is an intervention in which a trained navigator, often a lay health worker or nurse, helps a patient overcome barriers to follow-up care, such as scheduling, transportation, insurance, language and fear, from the abnormal result to resolution.
The research base for navigation is unusually strong for a health services intervention. The national Patient Navigation Research Program tested navigation at multiple centers, and its pooled analysis of 10,521 patients with abnormal screening tests found that navigation improved the timeliness of diagnostic resolution, although the benefit appeared only after the first 90 days (Freund et al., 2014). An individually randomized trial at Denver Health, a safety-net system much like ours, found shorter time to resolution among 993 patients assigned to navigation (Raich et al., 2012). Analyses of program data also suggest that delays are not distributed evenly: patients with several chronic conditions waited longer and benefited most from navigation (Whitley et al., 2017), and women living in more deprived neighborhoods took longer to reach resolution (Plascak et al., 2014).
Purpose and PICO Question
Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2015) present evidence-based practice as a way of deciding that weighs research findings alongside professional experience and what patients themselves want, and they emphasize that the process begins with a focused, searchable question. The review is built around one question: for adult patients of a safety-net system whose screening mammogram, Pap test or stool test is abnormal (population), does assigning a patient navigator (intervention), rather than standard notification and referral (comparison), reduce the days to a confirmed diagnosis and raise the share of patients resolved inside twelve months (outcome)?
Significance
The answer matters for a concrete decision. Our system's leaders are considering whether to fund four patient navigators at a cost of about $280,000 a year, money that could instead expand mammography hours or support a mobile screening program. A decision of that size deserves evidence about which patients navigation helps, how quickly the benefit appears and what it cannot fix. The review is written to inform that decision, not only to summarize the research. It also matters beyond our system, since many safety-net providers face the same choice with the same limited budgets, and since federal and state programs increasingly pay for navigation services, making the evidence relevant to how those dollars are spent.
Organization of the Review
Three themes drawn from the two literature matrices give the synthesis its structure. The first examines who benefits most from navigation, including patients with comorbidities, older adults and those served by community health centers. The second examines the barriers that slow resolution regardless of navigation, such as insurance, education and neighborhood deprivation. The third considers how navigation fits within broader outreach programs, such as mailed stool testing with navigation to colonoscopy. The review closes with implications for our system and the gaps that remain in the evidence.
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
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
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
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 4 instructions ask
BUSI 619 sets the Literature Review Introduction in its fourth module/week, the week assigned chapters 9 and 10 of Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, three presentations, four websites and Discussion Board Forum 5. Students write a 500 to 800 word introduction to their literature review in current APA format, citing at least two primary research articles and including a title page and reference list. The introduction is the first piece of prose in the review, so it should establish the problem, define key terms, state the PICO question and explain how the review will be organized. The synthesis in Module/Week 5 and the final review in Module/Week 7 will build directly on it, which makes careful wording now an investment in later weeks.
How this BUSI 619 Week 4 example is built
The sample introduction opens with the problem in human and organizational terms: people whose screening came back abnormal and who then wait for months or drop out of follow-up altogether, with figures from the writer's safety-net system. It then defines patient navigation and diagnostic resolution, the two terms the review depends on. A paragraph summarizes the strongest evidence that delays are real and that navigation can reduce them, citing primary research from the matrices. The PICO question appears next, followed by a paragraph explaining why the question matters to administrators deciding whether to fund navigators. The introduction closes by previewing the three themes the later synthesis will develop, namely the patients helped most, the obstacles navigation cannot remove and navigation's place inside wider outreach programs.
BUSI 619 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
The Literature Review Introduction in BUSI 619 is generally graded on how plainly the problem and its stakes are stated, definitions of key terms, an explicit PICO or purpose statement, a preview of the review's organization, at least two primary research citations used accurately and APA formatting within the 500 to 800 word range. Faculty notice whether the introduction sets up the review rather than summarizing findings, since detailed results belong in the synthesis. A well-written introduction tells the reader why the question matters and how the evidence will be presented. Precise language about study designs and outcomes, consistent with the matrices, shows the student is building one coherent document across the course.
BUSI 619 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Begin with the problem as your organization experiences it, then widen to show it is a known issue in the literature. Define any term a reader might misunderstand, such as your intervention or outcome. State your PICO question in full. Cite at least two primary studies to show the evidence base exists, but save detailed findings for the synthesis. Explain why the answer matters for practice or management decisions. End with a short roadmap of the themes the review will cover. Keep within 500 to 800 words, and add the title page and reference list in APA format. Reread your matrices so the introduction's language matches the evidence you will discuss.
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 3: Literature Matrix Part 2
- 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 4: Discussion Board Forum 4
- BUSI 523 Week 4: Affordable Care Essay
- BUSI 528 Week 4: Product Strategy Paper
- BUSI 611 Week 4: Discussion Board Forum 4
BUSI 619 Week 4 questions, answered
What is the BUSI 619 Literature Review Introduction?
Students earn up to 85 points in Module/Week 4 by writing a 500 to 800 word introduction to their literature review with at least two primary research citations, a title page and references.
Where can I find a free BUSI 619 Week 4 sample paper?
This page holds a complete BUSI 619 Week 4 literature review introduction that frames patient navigation as an answer to slow diagnosis in a safety-net system, with references in APA style.
What should a literature review introduction include?
It should state the problem and its significance, define key terms, present the PICO question or purpose and preview how the review is organized, saving detailed findings for the synthesis.
What is diagnostic resolution after an abnormal screening test?
It is the point at which follow-up testing confirms a diagnosis, either cancer or a benign finding, ending the uncertainty created by the abnormal screening result.
What else is due in BUSI 619 Module/Week 4?
Discussion Board Forum 5 is due with the introduction, along with chapters 9 and 10 of the textbook, three presentations and four 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 4 sample · All BUSI 619 weeks · All courses