A98 PATIENT NAVIGATOR PROGRAMS FOR CHRONIC GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS: A SCOPING REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Individuals living with chronic gastrointestinal disorders (CGIDs), including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), diverticulitis (DI), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and undiagnosed gastrointestinal complaints (UGCs), could encounter healthcare barriers, such as delays in diagnosis, frequent hospital visits, complex treatment plans, financial concerns, transportation difficulties, among others. Patient navigator programs (PNPs) have emerged as a potential solution to enhance healthcare access and improve care for chronic diseases, including CGIDs. Aims To synthesize available literature on PNPs for CGIDs, describing their focus and impacts. Methods A scoping review was completed across seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Global Health, and Public Health. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method studies and abstracts published between 2012 and 2022 were included in this review. Eligibility criteria included publications in English focused on PNPs for CGIDs. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and available full texts. The included publications were classified and summarized. Results 11 publications were included in the review; the majority were from the United States (n=5). There were two publications from Australia, two from Canada, one from Belgium, and one from Chile. There were nine full papers and two conference abstracts. By study design, there were four retrospective cohorts, three cross-sectionals, two case-control, one prospective cohort, and one study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. The 11 publications described 10 PNPs for CGIDs, which were implemented between 2008 and 2022 in urban areas, and all were linked to hospital clinics or tertiary referral centres. Nurses led ten PNPs, and eight programs were for IBD care. The other three programs were for persons with GERD, DI, or UGCs. These publications reported the positive impact of PNPs on multiple healthcare utilization and patient outcomes, including more timely access to appointments and diagnostic tests, decreased hospital admission rates, fewer emergency department visits, high user satisfaction levels, reductions in no-show rates for gastroenterology appointments and direct healthcare costs, and a reduced need for pain medications post-hospital discharge. Conclusions This scoping review identified 10 PNPs for CGIDs around the world; the majority of these PNPs were led by nurses and designed for IBD care. PNPs for CGIDs have evidence of multiple benefits for individuals and the healthcare system. Further research could explore the impact on patient outcomes of PNPs for CGIDs living in rural and remote locations, as well as their impact on individuals with CGIDs belonging to equity-deserving groups. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0,014 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».