From experience to a learning health system: peer-to-peer perspectives and implications for healthcare navigation in Alberta, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Healthcare navigation services help individuals access timely and appropriate care within complex health systems, particularly those facing systemic and equity-related barriers. Understanding navigation experiences is essential to addressing service gaps and improving health outcomes. This study sought to examine the lived experiences of navigation in Alberta to identify inequities within existing programs and to provide recommendations for strengthening person-centered navigation within a learning health system framework. Materials This was a qualitative, peer-to-peer, patient-oriented research study. The study design followed the Patient and Community Engagement Research process of SET-COLLECT-REFLECT. The SET phase engaged patient and public partners in discussions to co-design the research question and the study design. The COLLECT phase included focus groups and interviews with adult residents in Alberta who had been navigated ( n = 13) and those who had experience as healthcare navigators ( n = 13) in the Alberta healthcare system. The data were thematically analyzed, identifying key themes and subthemes. The REFLECT phase ran two focus groups with COLLECT participants for member checking. This approach yielded the recommendations. Results Of the 26 participants, over 75% were women (77% of the Navigated group and 75% of the Navigator group) aged 41–50 years old. Half of those in the Navigator group had provided their service for more than 5 years and had received specialized training in healthcare navigation. The following themes were identified: (1) participants’ situations and circumstances, (2) navigation experiences, (3) perspectives, (4) need for healthcare navigators, (5) the navigator role, (6) current best practices and challenges, and (7) training and support. Five recommendations included expanding the scope and enhancing awareness of navigation programs with a personalized approach and embedded evaluation and developing and formalizing navigation training programs. Conclusion This study identified gaps and opportunities in healthcare navigation programs from both navigator and navigated perspectives. The findings provide patient-centered recommendations to strengthen navigation services and their integration into Alberta's learning health system that can enhance equitable access, healthcare experiences, and outcomes.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».