Factors Influencing the Implementation of Patient Navigation Programs for Adults with Complex Needs: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient navigation is a model of care that aims to improve access to care by reducing the complexity of navigating health, education, and social services across the continuum of care and care settings. Little is known about the processes that facilitate or impede the implementation of patient navigation programs (PNPs). We conducted a scoping review to identify and summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the implementation and outcomes of existing implemented PNPs. We employed a 6-stage scoping review framework to identify and review eligible articles. Sixty-articles met the inclusion criteria (58 peer-reviewed and 2 grey literature). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research served as the theoretical framework during analysis to help extract factors relevant to implementation of navigator programs. Results of the scoping review are reported thematically. Influences on implementation were identified: (a) planning to ensure alignment with organizational need (b) funding (c) multidisciplinary engagement (d) establishing workflow (e) mechanisms for communication (f) stakeholders to encourage buy-in (g) appropriate caseload (h) in kind resources. PNPs improve the experiences of patients and families. The findings of this scoping review provides implementation considerations of PNPs across global care settings. Strategies for overcoming pragmatic and logistical issues must be developed for optimal implementation.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it