Patient Navigation as an Approach to Improve the Integration of Care: The Case of NaviCare/SoinsNavi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and youth with complex care needs require more and varied healthcare services than the average population, as well as a high degree of coordinated care. Evidence has shown that these individuals and their families have better outcomes if they have access to integrated care. Patient navigation can serve as a novel approach to improve the integration of care for individuals with complex care needs in an increasingly fragmented system. NaviCare/SoinsNavi is an example of a navigation centre for children and youth with complex care needs, their families, and the care team. This research-based service is aimed at facilitating more convenient and integrated care using a personalized family-centred approach. NaviCare/SoinsNavi employs two patient navigators who work with clients to formulate and prioritize goals based on their unmet needs. The centre serves as a living laboratory, which provides researchers, knowledge users, and clients a real life setting where innovative ideas can be explored, evaluated, modified as needed throughout the research process, and moved into policy in an efficient manner. Patient navigation programs can contribute to decreasing fragmentation, improving access, and promoting integrated care across disciplines, settings, and sectors for individuals across the lifespan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".