Patient navigation programs in Alberta, Canada: an environmental scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient navigation is a complex intervention that has garnered substantial interest and investment across Canada. We conducted an environmental scan to understand the landscape of patient navigation programs within the health care system in Alberta, Canada. Methods: We included patient navigation programs within Alberta Health Services (AHS) and Alberta’s Primary Care Networks (PCNs). Key informants were asked in October 2016 to identify existing programs and their corresponding program contacts. These program contacts were invited to complete a telephone-based survey from October 2016 to July 2017, to provide program descriptions and eligibility criteria, and to identify gaps in navigation. Programs were included if they engaged patients on an individual basis, and either facilitated continuity of care or promoted patient and family empowerment. We tabulated results and calculated summary statistics for program characteristics. Results: Ninety-five potentially eligible programs were identified by key informants. The response rate to the study survey was 73% (n = 69). After excluding programs not meeting inclusion criteria, we included a total of 58 programs in the study: 43 AHS programs and 15 PCN programs. Nearly all programs (93%, n = 54) delivered navigation via an individual acting as a navigator. A minority of programs also included nonnavigator components, such as Web-based resources (7%, n = 4) and process or structural changes to facilitate navigation (22%, n = 13). Certain patient subgroups were particularly well-served by patient navigation; these included patients with cancer, substance use disorders or mental health concerns, and pediatric patients. Gaps identified in navigation fell under 4 domains: awareness, resources, geographic distribution and integration. Interpretation: Patient navigation programs are common and have extended beyond cancer care, from which the construct originated; however, gaps include a lack of awareness and inequitable access to the programs. These findings will be of interest to those developing and implementing patient navigation interventions in Alberta and other jurisdictions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".