==== Front PLoS One PLoS One plos PLOS ONE 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638 PONE-D-22-19723 Study Protocol Medicine and Health Sciences Health Care Caregivers Medicine and Health Sciences Clinical Medicine Clinical Trials Randomized Controlled Trials Medicine and Health Sciences Pharmacology Drug Research and Development Clinical Trials Randomized Controlled Trials Research and Analysis Methods Clinical Trials Randomized Controlled Trials Medicine and Health Sciences Oncology Cancers and Neoplasms Lung and Intrathoracic Tumors Medicine and Health Sciences Health Care Quality of Life Medicine and Health Sciences Mental Health and Psychiatry Social Sciences Economics Health Economics Health Insurance Medicine and Health Sciences Health Care Health Economics Health Insurance Social Sciences Economics Economic Analysis Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Research and Analysis Methods Research Design Qualitative Studies Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with lung cancer or stroke in Germany: Protocol of the CoreNAVI study Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with lung cancer or stroke in Germany https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3672-2032 Gödde Kathrin Conceptualization Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft 1 * Fügemann Hella Conceptualization Methodology Project administration Writing – review & editing 2 Goerling Ute Conceptualization Funding acquisition Methodology Resources Writing – review & editing 3 Grittner Ulrike Funding acquisition Methodology Writing – review & editing 4 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-1640 Kohl Raphael Methodology Writing – review & editing 5 Meisel Andreas Funding acquisition Methodology Resources Writing – review & editing 6 Reinhold Thomas Funding acquisition Methodology Writing – review & editing 7 Schnitzer Susanne Funding acquisition Methodology Writing – review & editing 5 Deckert P. Markus Resources Writing – review & editing 8 Frost Nikolaj Resources Writing – review & editing 9 Schreiber Stephan J. Resources Writing – review & editing 10 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6870-451X Rieckmann Nina Conceptualization Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft 1 Holmberg Christine Conceptualization Funding acquisition Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft 2 11 1 Institute of Public Health, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 2 Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Berlin, Germany 3 Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 4 Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 5 Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 6 Center for Stroke Research (CSB), Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 7 Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 8 Oncology and Palliative Care and Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Hematology, Both: Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Berlin, Germany 9 Department of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary Medicine, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 10 Department of Neurology, Oberhavel Kliniken, Clinic Hennigsdorf, Hennigsdorf, Germany 11 Faculty of Health Sciences, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany Konerding Uwe Editor University of Bamberg, GERMANY Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: kathrin.goedde@charite.de 29 6 2023 2023 18 6 e02876389 8 2022 28 4 2023 © 2023 Gödde et al 2023 Gödde et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Patient navigation programmes were introduced in the United States and recently gained interest in Germany, where the health care system is fragmented. Navigation programmes aim to decrease barriers to care for patients with age-associated diseases and complex care paths. Here we describe a feasibility study to evaluate a patient-oriented navigation model that was developed in a first project phase by integrating data about barriers to care, vulnerable patient populations and existing support services. Methods We designed a mixed-methods feasibility study that consists of two two-arm randomized controlled trials aligned with observational cohorts. The intervention group of the RCTs gets support by personal navigators for 12 months. The control group receives a brochure with regional support offers for patients and caregivers. The feasibility of the patient-oriented navigation model for two prototypic age-associated diseases, lung cancer and stroke, is evaluated with regard to its acceptance, demand, practicality and efficacy. This investigation includes process evaluation measures with detailed documentation of the screening and recruitment process, questionnaires about satisfaction with navigation, observant participation and qualitative interviews. Estimates of efficacy for patient-reported outcomes are obtained at three follow-up time points including satisfaction with care and health-related quality of life. Furthermore, we analyze health insurance data from patients of the RCT insured at a large German health insurance (AOK Nordost) to investigate heath care utilization, costs and cost effectiveness. Trial registration The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025476). http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY1911 CoreNAVI is part of the research consortium “NAVICARE – Patient-oriented health services research” and is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1911). The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. Data Availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. ==== Body pmcIntroduction Patient navigation (PN) was first developed in the USA to reduce health disparities in cancer care [1–3]. Person navigators of varying professional background support patients with complex conditions and a variety of chronic diseases or their family caregivers in overcoming barriers in healthcare. However, concepts differ in navigator roles and tasks [4]. Reviews on PN programmes in cancer care suggest that such programmes reduced time to treatment initiation and adherence in vulnerable patient groups in the US health care system [5,6]. However, data on their effectiveness regarding other healthcare indicators and patient outcomes is limited. In addition, little is known about the feasibility of PN programmes in different health care settings and about the success of their outreach strategies in order to include patients most in need of support. Factors of feasibility and effectiveness may vary considerably depending on the health care system it is applied to. The German health care system is fragmented with insufficient professional coordination for complex health care situations, such as chronic illness or multi-morbidity of patients. It is separated in inpatient and outpatient care with separate reimbursement rules, meaning that continuity of care between in-hospital and ambulatory providers is often not ensured [7–10]. Similarly, ambulatory care is not centred on general practitioners as gatekeepers and social care approaches are not regularly available outside the hospital. Thus, care coordination is mostly left to patients and / or their caregivers. Accordingly, studies have shown the importance of social networks of patients for good patient care in Germany [11,12]. Additional care models are needed in light of the demographic changes of an increasing elderly population with expected increasing prevalence of age-associated diseases and multi-morbidity and decreasing informal social networks for the older population [13]. To develop a navigation programme that is patient-oriented [14] and may adapt to the German context, we previously conducted a mixed-methods study including secondary data analyses [15,16], qualitative investigation of patients’ needs, and expert interviews [17,18]. We integrated results from these analyses and developed a PN model to fit the care needs of stroke and lung cancer patients [19]. Using this multi-perspective, empirically based approach, we developed a patient-oriented PN programme for patients with age-associated, chronic diseases. It aims to support patients to receive optimal care addressing their individual goals and preferences in a first project phase. Here, we present the study protocol of the CoreNAVI Study, a feasibility study to evaluate this PN programme designed to improve patient-oriented health care delivery for patients with age-associated diseases, stroke or lung cancer, in ambulatory care in Germany. CoreNAVI is a sub-project of the NAVICARE network for patient-oriented health services research, which aims to reduce barriers and inequalities in the care of patients with age-associated diseases. Material and methods Aims and objectives The aim of the study is to investigate the feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme in the German health care context. We chose to test this in two patient groups: persons with stroke and persons with lung cancer. We further aim to provide estimates of efficacy regarding selected patient reported outcomes, health care utilization and costs. The following main research questions will be addressed: Is the patient-oriented, individualized navigation programme that was developed in the first CoreNAVI project phase feasible (as indicated by acceptance, demand and practicality)? Does a patient-oriented navigation programme impact estimates of efficacy (patient reported outcome: satisfaction with care)? Additional secondary research questions are: Do we reach the patients that we assume most vulnerable (i.e. at risk of not receiving healthcare according to their preferences, values and needs) with the planned strategy? Which factors in the delivery process are associated with the (success or failure in the) acceptance, demand and practicality (feasibility) of the intervention? Is the timing, setting and mode of contact of the initial recruitment and navigation strategy optimal or should alternatives be considered? Which factors moderate the feasibility and the efficacy of the intervention? Study design We evaluate the PN programme via a mixed-methods study with separate two-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aligned with observational cohorts for stroke and lung cancer (one for each index disease; see Figs 1 and 2). This is an open-labelled study since blinding was not possible. Patient-reported outcomes and healthcare indicators are assessed at multiple time points during the follow-up (see Fig 2). Along the RCTs a process evaluation is performed including detailed documentation of screening, recruitment and intervention processes, a qualitative study including participant observation and personnel and participant interviews as well as an economic evaluation of the programme within a subgroup of patients in the RCT insured with a large German health insurance (Fig 2). 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.g001 Fig 1 Schedule for the enrolment, intervention and data collection according to SPIRIT checklist [20]. 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.g002 Fig 2 Study design. Study registration The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025476). Registration was on 04.06.2021 (Version 1). Study setting Active recruitment sites of patients are inpatient (stroke units) or specialized outpatient clinics for lung cancer in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. In addition, a range of rehabilitation clinics in the Berlin and Brandenburg region have been selected at which study materials, including flyers and posters advertising the study, are distributed to patients. The navigation intervention begins after in-patient care is completed. A navigator is assigned to a patient as constant contact for one year including personal meetings, home-visits, phone calls, digital visits and email conversation. Participants Inclusion Criteria are: Patients with confirmed diagnosis of stroke/TIA (ICD-10 codes: G45.x, I60.x, I61.x, I63.x, I64.x, H34.x (since 01.08.2021), H47.0 (since 01.05.2022) or confirmed diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD-10 codes: C34.1, C34.2, C34.3, C34.8, C34.9, C97) Caregiver of a patient (only for RCT) with any of the above diagnoses (with the patient’s consent or existing legal representation). Age: ≥18 years Residence in Berlin or Brandenburg Insurance status with the AOK Nordost (for claims data analysis within RCT only) Exclusion Criteria are: Nursing home residence at time of study enrolment Patients who are not capable of informed consent and have no existing legal care Dementia (inclusion of caregivers is possible for the RCT) Language barrier (inclusion of caregivers is possible for the RCT) Recruitment and consent process Eligible patients are screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria in cooperation with the participating recruitment sites. Study information materials are distributed on the wards and patients or caregivers are actively approached by the study personnel. For patients and their caregivers not interested in participating in the RCT, participation in the parallel cohort is offered. RCT-participants, who are insured in the participating statutory health insurance company (AOK Nordost), are approached and informed about the secondary data analysis. The possibility for later contact and enrolment is provided to interested patients and caregivers. Those interested in participating are provided with the detailed study information. Patients and caregivers willing to participate give written informed consent. Study refusers are asked to complete a brief refuser questionnaire. Arm 1: Navigation arm: Participants receive support of a personal patient navigator for one year. Arm 2: Control arm: Participants receive a print brochure with regional support offers for patients with stroke/lung cancer and their caregivers. Cohort: Eligible participants who do not want to be participate in the RCT for various reasons. They receive no patient navigation or brochure. Recruitment period started in June 2021 until the end of August 2022. Intervention Intervention Participants randomized to the intervention arm receive support of a personal patient navigator for up to one year with a minimum contact frequency every three months. The PN is individually tailored to the needs of participants and provides support in the domains i) provision of information for support for everyday life and further treatment options, such as counselling services, psychosocial and other support options, ii) help with application formalities, such as applying for a disability certificate or care degree and rehabilitation measures, iii), if necessary, establishing contact with (specialist) doctors, therapists and other support and care facilities. Control Participants in the control arm receive a print brochure with regional support offers for patients with stroke/lung cancer and their caregivers, which has previously been developed [17]. Cohort study Eligible patients who do not want to participate in the RCT are invited to take part in an observational cohort study, where they do not receive support by a personal navigator or a brochure. Cohort participants received the same questionnaires as RCT participants at the same time points. The cohort studies allow the comparison of health care needs and patient characteristics between participants with and without a subjective need for PN over time. Allocation to study arm within RCTs Randomisation within each patient / participant group (stroke / lung cancer) is stratified by centre (Berlin, Brandenburg) and by type of participant (patient or caregiver). Randomisation is conducted by an independent biostatistician using the R Package randomizeR [21], after patients have completed the baseline assessment. Group assignment is sent to the study personnel via e-mail for each included patient. Outcomes Primary outcome The primary outcome is the feasibility of the intervention. We defined the primary feasibility criteria as: (1) At least 70% of patients randomized to the intervention arm have received at least one initial in-person navigator session, and (2) The dropout rate from the intervention arm of the RCT is less than 40% within one year. In case these feasibility criteria are met, we will test the efficacy outcome ‘satisfaction with care’ as a further primary outcome (single item ‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the general medical care?’ with 5-point likert response scale) at the final follow-up (13 months after baseline, 12 month after the start of the intervention). Secondary outcomes Several feasibility and efficacy outcomes have been selected as secondary outcomes. Table 1 provides an overview of the selected feasibility indicators. 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.t001 Table 1 Feasibility indicators. Area of feasibility Indicator Acceptance • % eligible patients interested to receive the navigator intervention • % consenting to the RCTs • % interested but unwilling to be randomized • % patients randomized and starting the intervention • % patients continuing the intervention until the end (after 12 months)* • % patients adhering to the appointments with navigator • % patients and % navigators ‚very satisfied‘ or ‚satisfied‘ with the intervention Demand • Support needs • Number of navigator contacts • Delivery mode of the navigator interaction (in-person, phone, email) • Type of navigator services performed Implementation and Practicality • % of target population (potentially eligible patients) approached and informed about study at recruitment centres before discharge • % enrolled patients who receive first in-person navigator session within scheduled timeframe* • % patient-navigator appointments carried out as planned • % of individual patient goals achieved * Primary feasibility outcomes. Secondary efficacy outcomes are several patient and caregiver reported outcomes (for full list of outcomes and used measures see Tables 2 and 3). Outcomes from the secondary data analysis of insurance claims include utilization of medical care and costs, clinical outcomes such as mortality and cost-effectiveness (Table 4). 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.t002 Table 2 Measures for patients. Item name Number of items Stroke Notes Lung cancer Notes Reference B T1 T2 T3 B T1 T2 T3 Present situation 2 X - - - X - - - self-developed Age 1 X - - - X - - - [22] Gender 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Health-related quality of life (generic) 5 X X X X X X X X [23–26] Health-related quality of life (generic, scale) 1 X X X X X X X X [23–26] Health-related quality of life (specific, symptoms) 14 - - - - specific for lung cancer X X X X [27] Barthel-Index 10 X* X X X *medical charts - - - - specific for stroke [28] Mental health 4 X X X X X X X X [29] Distress (scale) 1 X - X X X - X X [30] Utilization of medical care 1 X X X X X X X X Adapted from [31] Utilization of inpatient care 1 X X* X* X* *+ period of time + clinic/infirmary X X* X* X* *+ period of time + clinic/infirmary Adapted from [31] Utilization of emergency department 2 X X X X X X X X [22] Utilization of therapy / counselling 1 - X X X X X X X Adapted from [31] Utilization of rehabilitation 1 - X X X - X X X Adapted from [31] Delayed care 2 X X X X X X X X [22] Forgone Care (renunciation) 2 - X - - X X X - [32] Satisfaction with care 2 X X X X X X X X self-developed Information needs 4 X X - - X X - - [33] Health literacy 4 - X - X X X - X [34] Health literacy 3 X X - X X X - X [35] Trust in medical care 1 X X X X X X X X [32] Support needs 15 X X* X** X** *19 items ** 23 items X* X** X*** X*** *16 items **20 items *** 23 items [36] and self-developed items Social support 6 X - - - X - X - [37] People who support 1 X X* X* X* *+ category „emotional support“ X X* X* X* *+ category „emotional support“ Adapted from [31] Loneliness 6 X - - - X - - - [38] Social relationships 9 - X X - - X X X [39] Self-efficacy 7 - - X X X X X X [40] Smoking 1 - X X X - X X X [22] Daily activity 2 - X X X - X X X [31] Sleep 2 - X X X - X X X [31] Use of computers 2 - - X - - - X - self-developed Marital status 2 X - - - X - - - [22] Living situation 1 X X X X X X X X self-developed Pet 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Education 2 X - - - X - - - Adapted from [22] Employment 1 X X* X* X* *+ vocational rehabilitation X - X* X* *+ vocational rehabilitation Adapted from [22] Care level 3 X X X X X X X X Adapted from [31] Medication adherence 1 - - - X - - - X Translated from [41] Impairment / disability 2 - X X* X* *only disability - X* X* X* *only disability [22] Chronic diseases 1 - - X X - - X X Adapted from [22] Height / weight 2 X - - - X - - - Adapted from [22] Nationality and migration status 4 X - - - X - - - Adapted from [22] Restriction of contacts 1 - X X X - X X X [31] Status of received care 11 X* - - - *only patients at home - - - - self-developed Satisfaction with navigation 13 - X X* X** only in navigation group *new wording, +2 items, -1 item, -open questions **+1 item - X X* X** only in navigation group *new wording, +2 items, -1 item, -open questions **+1 item Adapted from [42] and self-developed Satisfaction with brochure 14 - - - X* *only control group - - - X* *only control group self-developed 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.t003 Table 3 Measures for caregivers. Item name Number of items Stroke Notes Lung cancer Notes Reference B T1 T2 T3 B T1 T2 T3 Part 1: Information about patient (proxy rating) Barthel-Index 10 - X X X - - - - Specific for stroke [28] Health-related quality of life (specific, symptoms) 14 - - - - Specific for lung cancer - X X X [27] Health-related quality of life (generic, scale) 1 - - - - - X X X [23–26] Pesent situation 2 X - - - X - - - self-developed Age 1 X - - - X - - - [22] Gender 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Utilization of medical care 1 X X X X X X X X [31] Utilization of inpatient care 1 X X* X* X* *+ period of time + clinic/infirmary X X* X* X* *+ period of time + clinic/infirmary [31] Utilization of emergency department 2 X X X X X X X X [22] Utilization of therapy / counselling 1 - X X X - X X X [31] Utilization of rehabilitation 1 - X X X - X X X Adapted from [31] Delayed care 2 X X X X X X X X [22] Forgone Care (renunciation) 2 - X - - - X - - [32] Marital status 2 X - - - X - - - [22] Legal guardianship 2 - X X X - X X X self-developed Does relative live in household? 1 - - X X - X X X self-developed Living situation 1 X X X X X X X X self-developed Pet 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Education 2 X - - - X - - - Adapted from [22] Employment 1 X - X* X* *+ vocational rehabilitation X - X* X* *+ vocational rehabilitation Adapted from [22] Persons in household 1 - X X X - X X X [31] Care level 3 X X X X X X X X [31] Impairment / disability 2 - X X X* *only disability - X* X* X* *only disability [22] Height / weight 2 X - - - - - - - Adapted from [22] Nationality and migration status 4 X - - - X - - - [22] Part two: Information about caregiver (self-report) Age 1 X - - - X - - - [22] Gender 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Relationship with the patient 1 X - - - X - - - self- developed Health-related quality of life (generic) 5 X X X X X X X X [23–26] Health-related quality of life (generic, scale) 1 X X X X X X X X [23–26] Mental health 4 X X X X X X X X [29] Distress 1 X X X X X X X X [30] Satisfaction with care 2 X X X X X X X X self-developed Information needs 4 X X - - X X - - [33] Health literacy 4 X X - X X X - X [34] Health literacy 3 X X - X X X - X [35] Trust in medical care 1 X X X X X X X X [32] Support needs (in relation to patient) 15 X X* X** X** *13 items ** 18 items X* X** X*** X*** *16 items **13 items *** 18 items [36] Social support 6 X - - - X - - - [37] People who support (in relation to self) 1 X X* X* X* *+ category „emotional support“ X X* X* X* *+ category „emotional support“ [31] Loneliness 6 X - - - X - - - [38] Marital status 2 X - - - X - - - [22] Living situation 1 X X X X X X X X self-developed Use of computers 2 - - X - - X - self-developed Pet 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Education 2 X - - - X - - - [22] Employment 1 X X X X X X X X [22] Care level 3 X X X X X X X X [31] Care for patient 1 X - - - X - - - self-developed Chronic diseases 1 X - - X X - - X [22] Nationality and migration status 4 X - - - X - - - [22] Satisfaction with navigation 14 - X X X* only navigation group * - 1 open question, +1 item - X X X* only navigation group *new wording, +1 item Adapted from [42] and self-developed Satisfaction with brochure 14 - - - X* *only control group - - - X* *only control group self-developed 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.t004 Table 4 Outcomes of secondary data analysis. Outcome • Utilization of medical care and costs     ○ Outpatient and inpatient medical care     ○ Rehabilitation     ○ Remedies, e.g. physiotherapy     ○ Medication     ○ Nursing care • Cost effectiveness (based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) • Clinical Outcomes     ○ (Time to) Rehospitalization     ○ 1 year mortality/survival     ○ Recurrent stroke event Sample size and statistical testing RCT for stroke patients and their caregivers Based on assumptions about patient recruitment numbers that we would be able to achieve across a 1-year recruitment period at the study centres we made the following power considerations. It was estimated that 60–70% of patients may be reached for active recruitment after screening. Of these patients, we estimated a recruitment rate of 30–50%, depending on recruitment centre. Based upon these considerations, we estimated a total enrolment of 460 stroke patients at the respective study sites. If 230 (50%) of the patients are randomised to the intervention arm, we assume that at least 95% (n = 219) will still have survived to receive PN at 4 weeks. For the primary feasibility outcomes this would result in the following: if 166 (75.8%) or more of these 219 patients receive the initial navigation session, the first feasibility criterion is met, as the 95% confidence interval of this proportion will not be less than 70% (95%CI: 70.1%-81.5%). We also assume that of these 230 patients (intervention arm), 85% (n = 196) survived after one year. If of these 196 patients, 65 (33.2%) or less are lost-to-follow-up, the second feasibility criterion will be met, as the 95% confidence interval of this proportion will be less than 40% (95% CI: 26.6%-39.8%). The feasibility of the study is considered successful if both criteria are achieved. In case of successful demonstration of feasibility, we additionally test the efficacy of the intervention in the study at the two-sided significance level α = 0.05 (hierarchical testing). All other outcomes are analysed in a secondary exploratory manner. RCT in lung cancer patients and their caregivers If 120 lung cancer patients are included in the study, and 60 (50%) of the patients are randomised to the intervention arm, we assume that at least 95% (n = 57) will still have survived to receive PN at 4 weeks. If 46 (80%) or more of these 57 patients receive the initial navigation session, the first feasibility criterion is met, as the 95% confidence interval of this proportion will not be less than 70% (95%CI: 70.5%-90.9%). We also assume that of these 57 patients (intervention arm), 75% (n = 43) survived after one year. If of these 43 patients, 11 (25.6%) or less are lost-to-follow-up, the second feasibility criterion is met, as the 95% confidence interval of this proportion will be less than 40% (95% CI: 12.5%-38.6%). The feasibility of the study is considered successful if both criteria are achieved and efficacy outcomes are analysed as described above. Data collection Process documentation (screening, recruitment, navigation) Screening and recruitment are documented on a daily basis (number of patients screened, in-/exclusion criteria, refusal rates). Study nurses collect reasons for non-participation from patients who are eligible but refuse study participation. At recruitment hospitals, anonymous information on age, gender, disease severity and comorbidities from the entire cohort of non-participating patients who were treated at the hospital units during the recruitment period will be extracted from the hospital documentation system at study end, so that participants and non-participants can be compared on these characteristics. The feasibility indicators (Table 1) are measured through detailed documentation throughout the recruitment and intervention process. Documentation files for screening and recruitment are kept separate from files used to document the PN. Detailed assessment of medical data of participating patients is collected from medical charts. Patient reported outcomes At baseline and prior to randomization, participants complete a questionnaire and at each follow-up, questionnaires are mailed to participants. Reported hospitalizations during the follow-ups are verified by hospital records; an active search will be performed for hospitalizations in the clinic database of the recruiting hospitals. Study personnel is blinded to participants’ group status. Vital status will be verified through the registration offices at completion of the follow-ups. Tables 2 and 3 provide an overviews of the patient reported outcomes. Collection of insurance claims data For the subsample of study patients, who are insured in the participating statutory health insurance company (AOK Nordost), the claims data during the study participation and one year before patients’ study enrolment will be provided pseudonymized to the researcher after patients’ consent. As the health insurance has a regional market share of 28% [43], we would expect such data to become available for about a quarter of all patients of the RCT. The data provided cover all in- and outpatients visits and treatments (including re-hospitalizations/recurrent stroke), data on medication, nursing care, rehabilitation, mortality, palliative care, healthcare costs, and the use of remedies and medical products. These data will allow to analyse the possible impact of the PN on the health care utilisation and will additionally used for conducting analysis on costs. For cost-effectiveness analyses, the results on mean health care utilization costs will be combined with primarily collected patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life. Participant observations and qualitative interviews The associated qualitative study focuses on the delivery of the navigation program and the recruitment into the RCTs and cohort studies. The aim is to identify factors of the delivery and recruitment processes that are associated with success and failure of the feasibility. To evaluate the recruitment strategy, we observe the processes at the study sites by shadowing the study nurses. Structured field notes and protocols are recorded of the observation. Furthermore, we conduct semi-structured interviews with our study nurses in regular intervals to capture their experiences with recruitment. To assess the feasibility of our PN program from the deliverers´ perspective, we use participant observation of the weekly navigator team meetings as well as qualitative interviewing of the navigators in regular intervals throughout the intervention phase. A comprehensive documentation of navigation activities provides detailed information about patients’ use of the navigation program. The patients’ perspective is assessed from qualitative interviews with patients (n = 30) enrolled in the RCT or cohort study. Selection of patients for the qualitative interviews is based on age, gender, and diversity in patients’ use of navigation services and satisfaction with the navigator`s work. Data analyses RCTs. Feasibility criteria for both RCTs will be tested using 95%CI of proportions. The lower limit of the 95%CI of the proportion of patients in the intervention arm in each RCT who participated in at least one initial face-to-face navigator session should be above 70%, and the higher limit of the 95%CI of the dropout rate in each RCT is below 40%. If both criteria are met and feasibility is therefore demonstrated, efficacy of both interventions will be tested separately using an ordinal regression model with ‘satisfaction with care’ (measured on a five point likert scale) 12 months after start of intervention as ordinal dependent variable, adjusted for baseline quality of life, centre, and for type of participant (patient or caregiver). If feasibility cannot be demonstrated, all other outcomes will be analysed in an exploratory manner. All secondary outcomes will be tested similarly using ANCOVA regression models adjusted for the particular baseline measure, centre, and type of participant [44]. Predefined sub-group analyses will be conducted to identify possible differences in intervention effects by calculating interaction effects and marginal effects. All primary questions will be analysed confirmatory in the "full analysis set". In the case of missing values and assuming "missing at random" (MAR) or “missing completely at random” (MCAR), multiple imputation models are used to estimate the missing values. Cohort studies In the parallel cohort studies the same outcomes will be analyse exploratory to compare patient reported outcomes and patient needs to those of participants who opted to enrol in the RCT. Economic analyses To date, the availability of high quality economic analyses with regard to PN in stroke und lung cancer patients is scarce [45,46]. For that reason, the present study will be supplemented by a health economic evaluation. The health economic analyses will consist of a (1) cost comparison analysis, supplemented with a (2) cost-effectiveness analysis and will be part of the planned RCTs. The cost comparison analysis will be based on the health claims data collected for patient being member of the participating health insurance company. These data will provide information on kind and frequency of health resource consumption covering care of all sectors as well as data on cost reimbursement. Therefore, the planned cost analysis will cover the health insurance perspective. The cost results will be tested for relevant and statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. For measuring the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, the results of the cost comparison analyses will be combined with results of the self-rated quality of life and survival time during the study in terms of quality adjusted life years. QALYs will be calculated based on the results of the EQ-5D questionnaire [23–26] and mortality data identified during the observation period. In case of the superiority of the intervention in terms of QALYs and increased costs for the intervention group, the incremental costs per QALY gained (ICER) will be obtained by combining cost- and effect differences between treatment groups. In case of increased costs and improved quality of life, the ICER indicates the cost-effectiveness by adopting an internationally accepted threshold (e.g., ≤ 50,000 Euro per QALY gained). All cost-effectiveness results will also take into account subgroups (e.g. by gender) and sensitivity analyses and finally be visualised in a cost-effectiveness plane. Qualitative study All qualitative data will be analysed thematically with regards to the different research questions and outcomes [47]. Interviews with study nurses, navigators and patients will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. To ensure the quality of analysis, it will be conducted within the research group and regularly discussed in qualitative research forums. Data management Data is gained from several data sources and collected in different databases. Data from participants is pseudonymized and transferred from paper questionnaires and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin [48,49]. AOK Nordost will provide the claims data via a secure exchange platform using a matching pseudonymization. Data provision will be overseen and permitted by the responsible supervisory authority. Furthermore, a detailed screening log is documented for detailed process evaluation and collection of data (age, sex, diagnosis, comorbidities) for the comparison of participants and non-participants. For non-participants, this data is analysed completely anonymized. Navigators document their activities in a separate database (PN file). A data safety plan was developed and approved by the data safety department of the Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The coordinator of the NAVICARE network will conduct one independent audit during the recruitment phase of the study period. The coordinator of NAVICARE is independent of the CoreNAVI research team. Ethics statements This protocol follows the standards of the Helsinki Convention of good clinical practices. The Ethics Committee of the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA2/249/20) and Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg–Theodor Fontane (Z-01-20210517) have approved the project. Availability of data and material Individual participant data from quantitative assessments that underlie the results reported in published articles after de-identification (text, tables, figures and appendices) will be made available 12 months after publication to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal (e.g., for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, individual participant data meta-analyses). Study center individual patient data will not be disclosed because of the possibility of re-identification of patients. Discussion Here, we describe a study that aims to evaluate the feasibility of a PN programme that was developed using an empirical approach including multiple data sources and perspectives [19]. A key feature of the PN intervention is the focus on individual patients’ needs and preferences in all aspects and questions that arise along their care path for their health-related wellbeing. We chose two prototypic age-associated diseases, lung cancer and stroke, that are characterized in very different disease manifestation and trajectories. This way we will gain insights about tasks of the navigation service that are shared between diseases and the ones specific to a disease for a feasible navigation model for age-associated diseases. The study was designed as a feasibility study as we deem it essential for an effective evaluation of a programme’s efficacy to first address questions on the programme’s acceptance by patients, caregivers and health care providers, their evaluation of the navigation services provided, the demand for such a programme and the practicality in the real-life clinical environment. For study participation, patients are actively approached in hospital wards and outpatient hospital clinics. Despite the challenges of approaching patients in a hospital setting, we chose this approach in order to not lose track of vulnerable patients in the gap between hospital and ambulatory care. Using an open recruitment strategy by primarily actively recruiting in the recruitment centre, but additionally providing information material to hospitals and other care institutions involved in the care of the respective indication, we intend to broaden the access for potentially interested and eligible patients and caregivers. Covid considerations We adapted the recruitment strategy by adding an outpatient rehabilitation centre in Berlin to the recruiting sites, where advertising material is distributed to eligible patients. In addition, advertising material is distributed through ambulatory healthcare providers, and at the Berlin sites, eligible stroke patients received an invitation letter from the clinic during times where study nurses had no access to the hospital wards. Navigators intensified networking with healthcare institutions in the ambulatory sector. In the PN programme intervention, in-person meetings temporarily had to be reduced to a minimum and a digital tool for virtual meetings with navigators was implemented. Dissemination Besides publications in peer reviewed journals, findings will be disseminated to patients and family caregivers, researchers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders as well as the general public through the NAVICARE network’s website (https://navicare.berlin/de/), twitter account (https://twitter.com/NAVICARE_Berlin), annual symposia, presentations at partnering institutions’ events and scientific conferences, and peer-reviewed publications. The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials register prior start of recruitment (DRKS00025476). Supporting information S1 Checklist SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*. (PDF) Click here for additional data file. S1 File (PDF) Click here for additional data file. S2 File (PDF) Click here for additional data file. We wish to thank Sandra Wendlandt for her support during the writing process of the paper. 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.r001 Decision Letter 0 Abdelbasset Walid Kamal Academic Editor © 2023 Walid Kamal Abdelbasset 2023 Walid Kamal Abdelbasset https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version0 30 Jan 2023 PONE-D-22-19723Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gödde, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Walid Kamal Abdelbasset, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Editor Plos One Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled (Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI study) The study idea is good. I have some comments to improve the manuscript. The abstract and introduction sections are so long. The authors should review these sections and remove unnecessary words/sentences. Reviewer #2: The authors have designed this protocol to show the Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation program for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany. It is a well-designed and well protocol some points should be explained . Line 300 301 302 Why did you select these percent (above 70 % and below 40 %) Line 304 using an ordinal regression model Explain the selection for that model Line 307 308 Discuss the selection of ANCOVA for Your Study Reviewer #3: The research design seems to be conducted in a proper way, The research idea is innovative and focused a new era. Only one explanation need to be clarified about participants age why didn't you make an upper limit for participants age to avoidphysiological cognitive changes? ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Sherif Mohamed Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version1 16 Mar 2023 Answer to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments (this response has also been attached as pdf file to this submission): Dear Editor, Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript for our work entitled ‘Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI study’. We now submitted a marked-up copy as well as an unmarked version of the revised manuscript via the PLOS One submission system. We are thankful for the helpful comments of the reviewers and are happy to address the raised questions (please see below). Besides the points described below in the response to the reviewers, the following changes have been made to the manuscript: Page 4, line 136: correction of wording to ‘We further aim to provide estimates of efficacy regarding selected patient reported outcomes,…’ Page 4, line 142-143: correction and rewording for clarification to ‘Does a patient-oriented navigation programme impact estimates of efficacy (patient reported outcome: satisfaction with care)?’ Page 5, line 170: correction of sentence to ‘This is an open-labelled study since blinding was not possible.’ Page 10, line 288: rewording for clarification to ‘All other outcomes are analysed in a secondary exploratory manner.’ Page 17, line 473-474: addition of an Acknowledgement section Page 20-25: Table 2 and Table 3: corrections in referencing and title Page 26, Author’s contributions: Correction of abbreviations Throughout manuscript: Correction of typos (e.g. page 5, line 180) Response to reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: Dear Editor Plos One Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled (Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI study) The study idea is good. I have some comments to improve the manuscript. The abstract and introduction sections are so long. The authors should review these sections and remove unnecessary words/sentences. Answer: We thank the reviewer for the helpful comment. We now revised the abstract and introduction part in order to shorten it by deleting unnecessary and redundant words and sentences. See pages 2-4, abstract and introduction Reviewer #2: The authors have designed this protocol to show the Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation program for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany. It is a well-designed and well protocol. Some points should be explained . Line 300 301 302 Why did you select these percent (above 70 % and below 40 %) Answer: These percentages were defined in a discussion process between the participating researchers taking into account their own and published experiences. Criteria were selected with the aim to find indicators that appropriately balance the lost-to-follow up/dropout rate that can be expected in navigation intervention studies in severely affected patients on the one hand and defining a conclusive indicator of feasibility to reflect acceptance/demand/practicality of the intervention on the other hand. (see for comparable approaches for example: Forster, A., Hartley, S., Barnard, L. et al. An intervention to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term (LoTS2Care): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial. Trials 19, 317 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2669-5 or Walters K, Frost R, Kharicha K, Avgerinou C, Gardner B, Ricciardi F, Hunter R, Liljas A, Manthorpe J, Drennan V, Wood J, Goodman C, Jovicic A, Iliffe S. Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2017 Dec;21(73):1-128. doi: 10.3310/hta21730.) We reworded the sentence ‘The programme is categorised as feasible if:’ to ‘We defined the primary feasibility criteria as:’ to indicate that definition of feasibility criteria was done by participating researchers. See page 8, line 251-252 Line 304 using an ordinal regression model Explain the selection for that model Answer: We selected this model as the outcome “satisfaction with care” is measured on a five point Likert-scale and therefore an ordinal scaled measure. That is the reason why we would use an ordinal regression model here. Additionally, we want to adjust for centres, baseline quality of life and type of participant. To do so we use a multiple ordinal regression model. To clarify this for the reader we now inserted the used scaling in the text. See page 13, line 361 and 362: …, efficacy of both interventions will be tested separately using an ordinal regression model with ‘satisfaction with care’ (measured on a five point likert scale) 12 months after start of intervention as ordinal dependent variable, … Line 307 308 Discuss the selection of ANCOVA for Your Study Answer: We selected ANCOVA models as the state of the art regression models for testing group differences in randomized trials as they allow the adjustment for the specific baseline variables and adjustment for stratification variables, if stratified randomization was done as also described for the present study. See for example Senn, S. (2006), Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Statist. Med., 25: 4334-4344. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2682 We now cited this study to make the selection of the method more clear to the reader. See page 13, line 366 Reviewer #3: The research design seems to be conducted in a proper way, The research idea is innovative and focused a new era. Only one explanation need to be clarified about participants age why didn't you make an upper limit for participants age to avoid physiological cognitive changes? Answer: We thank the reviewers for this important question. One of the aims of evaluating the feasibility of the patient navigation model was to investigate if the most vulnerable patients are accessed with the used outreach strategy. During the development process of the model, older age was defined as one of the vulnerability characteristics (see Gödde et al. Development of a patient-oriented navigation model for patients with lung cancer and stroke in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;2 2(1):785.). Hence, we decided not to set an upper limit for recruitment here to be able to investigate the feasibility of the navigation programme for participants also of older age. However, patients were only enrolled in the study if capable for informed consent. Alternatively, caregivers were able to take part in the study if legal care existed. Attachment Submitted filename: CoreNAVI_Goedde_et_al_response_to_reviewers.pdf Click here for additional data file. 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.r003 Decision Letter 1 Konerding Uwe Academic Editor © 2023 Uwe Konerding 2023 Uwe Konerding https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version1 12 Jun 2023 Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI study PONE-D-22-19723R1 Dear Dr. Gödde, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Uwe Konerding Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable? Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors Thank you very much for doing your efforts to improve the manuscript. You covered the needed points in this revised manuscript. I think that the revised manuscript is ready for publication in its current form Reviewer #2: thanks alot for your response ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Sherif Mohamed Reviewer #2: No ********** 10.1371/journal.pone.0287638.r004 Acceptance letter Konerding Uwe Academic Editor © 2023 Uwe Konerding 2023 Uwe Konerding https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 19 Jun 2023 PONE-D-22-19723R1 Feasibility of a patient-oriented navigation programme for patients with Lung Cancer or Stroke in Germany: protocol of the CoreNAVI study Dear Dr. Gödde: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Uwe Konerding Academic Editor PLOS ONE ==== Refs References 1 Freeman HP , Muth BJ , Kerner JF . Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved. Cancer practice. 1995;3 (1 ):19–30. 7704057 2 Freeman HP . Patient Navigation: A Community Based Strategy to Reduce Cancer Disparities. Journal of Urban Health. 2006;83 (2 ):139–41. doi: 10.1007/s11524-006-9030-0 16736361 3 Freund KM , Battaglia TA , Calhoun E , Dudley DJ , Fiscella K , Paskett E , et al . National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures. Cancer. 2008;113 (12 ):3391–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23960 18951521 4 Schnitzer S , Kohl R , Fügemann H , Gödde K , Stumm J , Engelmann F , et al. Patient Navigation—Who Needs What? Awareness of Patient Navigators and Ranking of Their Tasks in the General Population in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19 (5 ):2846.35270537 5 Bush ML , Kaufman MR , Shackleford T . Adherence in the Cancer Care Setting: a Systematic Review of Patient Navigation to Traverse Barriers. Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education. 2018;33 (6 ):1222–9. doi: 10.1007/s13187-017-1235-2 28567667 6 Robinson-White S , Conroy B , Slavish KH , Rosenzweig M . Patient navigation in breast cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Nurs. 2010;33 (2 ):127–40. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181c40401 20142736 7 Ludt S , Heiss F , Glassen K , Noest S , Klingenberg A , Ose D , et al . [Patients’ perspectives beyond sectoral borders between inpatient and outpatient care—patients’ experiences and preferences along cross-sectoral episodes of care]. Gesundheitswesen. 2014;76 (6 ):359–65.23868649 8 Nolte E , Knai C , Hofmarcher M , Conklin A , Erler A , Elissen A , et al . Overcoming fragmentation in health care: chronic care in Austria, Germany and The Netherlands. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7 (1 ):125–46. doi: 10.1017/S1744133111000338 22221931 9 Stiel S , Joppich R , Korb K , Hahnen M , Elsner F , Rossaint R , et al . [Problems and deficits in the transition from inpatient and outpatient care of cancer patients. A qualitative analysis]. Schmerz. 2009;23 (5 ):510–7.19685084 10 Groenewegen PP , Dourgnon P , Greß S , Jurgutis A , Willems S . Strengthening weak primary care systems: steps towards stronger primary care in selected Western and Eastern European countries. Health Policy. 2013;113 (1–2 ):170–9. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.05.024 23895880 11 Sparla A , Flach-Vorgang S , Villalobos M , Krug K , Kamradt M , Coulibaly K , et al . Individual difficulties and resources—a qualitative analysis in patients with advanced lung cancer and their relatives. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10 :2021–9. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S110667 27757022 12 Schindel D , Schneider A , Grittner U , Jöbges M , Schenk L . Quality of life after stroke rehabilitation discharge: a 12-month longitudinal study. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43 (16 ):2332–41. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1699173 31846594 13 Schnitzer S , von dem Knesebeck O , Kohler M , Peschke D , Kuhlmey A , Schenk L . How does age affect the care dependency risk one year after stroke? A study based on claims data from a German health insurance fund. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15 :135. doi: 10.1186/s12877-015-0130-0 26499064 14 Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in A. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2001. 15 Schindel D , Mandl L , Schilling R , Meisel A , Schenk L . Guideline adherence in speech and language therapy in stroke aftercare. A health insurance claims data analysis. PloS one. 2022;17 (2 ):e0263397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263397 35113968 16 Gödde K , Siegerink B , Fügemann H , Keune D , Sander S , Schneider A , et al . Can routine register data be used to identify vulnerable lung cancer patients of suboptimal care in a German comprehensive cancer centre? Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2021;30 (4 ):e13398. 17 Gödde K , Fügemann H , Müller-Nordhorn J , Grimberg M , Goerling U , Siegerink B , et al . [Structured Collection of Data on Support Offers for Lung Cancer and Stroke Patients in Berlin]. Gesundheitswesen. 2020. 18 Fügemann H , Goerling U , Gödde K , Desch AK , Müller-Nordhorn J , Mauckisch V , et al . What do people with lung cancer and stroke expect from patient navigation? A qualitative study in Germany. BMJ Open. 2021;11 (12 ):e050601. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050601 34949615 19 Gödde K , Fügemann H , Desch A , Stumm J , Schindel D , Rieckmann N , et al . Development of a patient-oriented navigation model for patients with lung cancer and stroke in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22 (1 ):785. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08063-6 35710375 20 Chan AW , Tetzlaff JM , Altman DG , Laupacis A , Gøtzsche PC , Krleža-Jerić K , et al . SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of internal medicine. 2013;158 (3 ):200–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 23295957 21 Uschner D , Schindler D , Hilgers R-D , Heussen N . randomizeR: An R Package for the Assessment and Implementation of Randomization in Clinical Trials. Journal of Statistical Software. 2018;85 (8 ):1–22.30505247 22 Koch-Institut R. Fragebogen zur Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell: GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS. Journal of Health Monitoring. 2021;6 (3 ):88–106. 23 Group E. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16 (3 ):199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 10109801 24 Feng YS , Kohlmann T , Janssen MF , Buchholz I . Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2021;30 (3 ):647–73. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y 33284428 25 Herdman M , Gudex C , Lloyd A , Janssen M , Kind P , Parkin D , et al . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20 (10 ):1727–36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x 21479777 26 Stolk E , Ludwig K , Rand K , van Hout B , Ramos-Goñi JM . Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol. Value Health. 2019;22 (1 ):23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010 30661630 27 Bergman B , Aaronson NK , Ahmedzai S , Kaasa S , Sullivan M . The EORTC QLQ-LC13: a modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30a (5 ):635–42. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(94)90535-5 8080679 28 Heuschmann PLK-R P. U. , Nolte C. H. , Hünermund G. , Ruf H.-U. , Laumeier I. , Meyrer R. , Alberti T. , Rahmann A. , Kurth T. , Berger K. Untersuchung der Reliabilität der deutschen Version des Barthel-Index sowie Entwicklung einer postalischen und telefonischen Fassung für den Einsatz bei Schlaganfall-Patienten. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2005;73 (2 ):74–82.15685491 29 Löwe B , Wahl I , Rose M , Spitzer C , Glaesmer H , Wingenfeld K , et al . A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2010;122 (1–2 ):86–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.019 19616305 30 Mehnert A , Müller D , Lehmann C , Koch U . Die deutsche Version des NCCN Distress-Thermometers. Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2006;54 (3 ):213–23. 31 Gößwald AL , Maichel Kamtsiuris, P . & Kurth B-M . DEGS: Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland, Bundesweite Quer- und Längsschnittstudie im Rahmen des Gesundheitsmonitorings des Robert Koch-Instituts. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2012;55 :775–80. 32 GmbH FFWT . Versichertenbefragung der Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung 2016—Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage. 2016. 33 Faller H , Koch U , Brähler E , Härter M , Keller M , Schulz H , et al . Satisfaction with information and unmet information needs in men and women with cancer. Journal of Cancer Survivorship. 2016;10 (1 ):62–70. doi: 10.1007/s11764-015-0451-1 25956402 34 Messer M , Vogt D ., Quenzel G . & Schaeffner D . Health Literacy bei vulnerablen Zielgruppen, Entwicklung und Konzeption des HLS-NRW-Q-Fragebogens. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. 2016;11 (2 ):110–6. 35 Schmidt-Kaehler S , Vogt D ., Berens E.—M ., Horn A ., & Schaeffer D . Gesundheitskompetenz—verständlich informieren und beraten: Material- und Methodensammlung zur Verbraucher- und Patientenberatung für Zielgruppen mit geringer Gesundheitskompetenz. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften; 2017. 36 Lehmann C , Koch U , Mehnert A . Psychometric properties of the German version of the Short-Form Supportive Care Needs Survey Questionnaire (SCNS-SF34-G). Support Care Cancer. 2012;20 (10 ):2415–24. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1351-1 22212457 37 Beutel ME , Brähler E , Wiltink J , Michal M , Klein EM , Jünger C , et al . Emotional and tangible social support in a German population-based sample: Development and validation of the Brief Social Support Scale (BS6). PloS one. 2017;12 (10 ):e0186516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186516 29023540 38 Gierveld JDJ , Tilburg TV . A 6-Item Scale for Overall, Emotional, and Social Loneliness:Confirmatory Tests on Survey Data. Research on Aging. 2006;28 (5 ):582–98. 39 Müller D , Mehnert A , Koch U . Skalen zur Sozialen Unterstützung bei Krankheit (SSUK)–Testtheoretische Überprüfung und Validierung an einer repräsentativen Stichprobe von Brustkrebspatientinnen. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie. 2004;13 :155–64. 40 Freund T , Gensichen J , Goetz K , Szecsenyi J , Mahler C . Evaluating self-efficacy for managing chronic disease: psychometric properties of the six-item Self-Efficacy Scale in Germany. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19 (1 ):39–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01764.x 21883720 41 Gehi A , Haas D , Pipkin S , Whooley MA . Depression and medication adherence in outpatients with coronary heart disease: findings from the Heart and Soul Study. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165 (21 ):2508–13. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.21.2508 16314548 42 Schmitt J , Warkentin N , Wilfling D , Steinhäuser J , Götz K . [A case management questionnaire for family caregivers of geriatric patients]. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2021. 43 AOK Nordost–Die Gesundheitskasse [Available from: https://www.bmcev.de/der-bmc/mitgliederverzeichnis/aok-nordost/. 44 Senn S. Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Stat Med. 2006;25 (24 ):4334–44. doi: 10.1002/sim.2682 16921578 45 Kass B , Dornquast C , Meisel A , Holmberg C , Rieckmann N , Reinhold T . Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs for stroke patients-A systematic review. PloS one. 2021;16 (10 ):e0258582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258582 34653188 46 Kass B , Dornquast C , Rieckmann N , Goerling U , Holmberg C , Reinhold T . Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for lung cancer? a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved]. F1000Research. 2021;10 (314 ). 47 Braun V , Clarke V . Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3 (2 ):77–101. 48 Harris PA , Taylor R , Minor BL , Elliott V , Fernandez M , O’Neal L , et al . The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2019;95 :103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 31078660 49 Harris PA , Taylor R , Thielke R , Payne J , Gonzalez N , Conde JG . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2009;42 (2 ):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 18929686