Patient navigation programs for people with dementia, their caregivers, and members of the care team: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this review was to map the literature on the characteristics of patient navigation programs for people with dementia, their caregivers, and members of the care team across all settings. The secondary objective was to map the literature on the barriers and facilitators for implementing and delivering such patient navigation programs. INTRODUCTION: People with dementia have individualized needs that change according to the stage of their condition. They often face fragmented and uncoordinated care when seeking support to address these needs. Patient navigation may be one way to help people with dementia access better care. Patient navigation is a model of care that aims to guide people through the health care system, matching their unmet needs to appropriate resources, services, and programs. Organizing the available information on this topic will present a clearer picture of how patient navigation programs work. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review focused on the characteristics of patient navigation programs for people living with dementia, their caregivers, and the members of the care team. It excluded programs not explicitly focused on dementia. It included patient navigation across all settings, delivered in all formats, and administered by all types of navigators if the programs aligned with this review's definition of patient navigation. This review excluded case management programs. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Embase, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health databases were searched for published full-text articles. A gray literature search was also conducted. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance against the inclusion criteria. The results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, and the extracted data are presented narratively and in tabular format. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles describing 20 programs were included in this review. The majority of these articles were published between 2015 and 2020, and based out of the United States. The types of sources included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and qualitative exploratory studies, among others. All programs provided some form of referral or linkage to other services or resources. Most dementia navigation programs included an interdisciplinary team, and most programs were community-based. There was no consistent patient navigator title or standard delivery method. Commonly reported barriers to implementing and delivering these programs were navigator burnout and a lack of coordination between stakeholders. Commonly reported facilitators were collaboration, communication, and formal partnerships between key stakeholders, as well as accessible and flexible program delivery models. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates variety and flexibility in the types of services patient navigation programs provided, as well as in the modes of service delivery and in navigator title. This information may be useful for individuals and organizations looking to implement their own programs in the future. It also provides a framework for future systematic reviews that seek to evaluate the effectiveness or efficacy of dementia navigation programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».