Characteristics of Existing Online Patient Navigation Interventions: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.056 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".