MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401696052 · doi:10.2196/50307

Characteristics of Existing Online Patient Navigation Interventions: Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4401696052 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Marsh, Syeda Rafia Shah, Sarah Munce, Laure Perrier, Tin‐Suet Joan Lee, Tracey J. F. Colella, Kristina M. Kokorelias

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation interventions (PNIs) can provide personalized support and promote appropriate coordination or continuation of health and social care services. Online PNIs have demonstrated excellent potential for improving patient knowledge, transition readiness, self-efficacy, and use of services. However, the characteristics (ie, intervention type, mode of delivery, duration, frequency, outcomes and outcome measures, underlying theories or mechanisms of change of the intervention, and impact) of existing online PNIs to support the health and social needs of individuals with illness remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review of the existing literature aims to identify the characteristics of existing online PNIs reported in the literature. METHODS: A scoping review based on the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute framework was conducted. A search for peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and 2022 on online PNIs was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers conducted 2 levels of screening. Data abstraction was conducted to outline key study characteristics (eg, study design, population, and intervention characteristics). The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that a variety of study designs are used to describe and evaluate online PNIs, with literature being published between 2003 and 2022 in Western countries. Of these studies, 39 (39%) studies were randomized controlled trials. In addition, we noticed an increase in reported online PNIs since 2019. The majority of studies involved White females with a diagnosis of cancer and a lack of participants aged 70 years or older was observed. Most online PNIs provide support through navigation, self-management and lifestyle changes, counseling, coaching, education, or a combination of support. Variation was noted in terms of mode of delivery, duration, and frequency. Only a small number of studies described theoretical frameworks or change mechanisms to guide intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review to comprehensively synthesize the existing literature on online PNIs, by focusing on the characteristics of interventions and studies in this area. Inconsistency in reporting the country of publication, population characteristics, duration and frequency of interventions, and a lack of the use of underlying theories and working mechanisms to inform intervention development, provide guidance for the reporting of future online PNIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207