Patient engagement in the development and implementation of navigation services: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient navigation, a complex health intervention meant to address widespread fragmentation across the healthcare landscape, has been widely adopted internationally. This rapid uptake in patient navigation has led to a broadening of the service's reach to include those of different social positions and different health conditions. Despite the popularity and prevalence of patient navigation programmes, the extent of patient involvement and/or partnership in their construction has yet to be articulated. This scoping review will explore and describe the extent to which patients have been engaged in the development and/or implementation of patient navigation programmes to date. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will adhere to the Arksey and O'Malley framework for conducting scoping reviews. The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX and Scopus were searched in September 2023 using terms related to patient navigation and programme implementation. Inclusion criteria stipulate that the studies must: (1) include an intervention labelled as 'navigation' in a healthcare setting and (2) describe patient engagement in the design, development and/or implementation process of said patient navigation programme. To assess study eligibility, two reviewers will independently read through the titles and abstracts, followed by the full texts, of each study identified from the search strategy to determine whether they meet inclusion criteria. Reviewers will then extract data from the included studies, present descriptive study characteristics in tables, and perform qualitative content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval as data will be collated exclusively from peer-reviewed articles and thesis dissertations. A manuscript summarising the results of the review will be written and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review will map aspects of programme development that have repeatedly utilised patient perspectives and areas where engagement has lagged. This review will also depict how patient engagement varies across programme characteristics.
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 | 0.171 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.020 |
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".