Occupational Therapists in Patient Navigation: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review seeks to understand the literature on patient navigator programs (PNPs) that employ occupational therapists (OTs), including the role (conceptualization), functions (operationalization) of OTs who work as patient navigators (PNs) and the settings and populations they serve. This review also mapped the role of PNs to the 2021 Competencies for Occupational Therapists in Canada. Scoping review methodology by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was employed. Data were analyzed thematically and numerically to identify frequent patterns. Ten articles were included. Within PNPs, OTs worked in hospitals and communities, but their role was rarely well-defined. Five competency domains (i.e., communication and collaboration, culture, equity and justice, excellence in practice, professional responsibility, and engagement with the profession) were evident in existing PNPs that included OTs. This review supports the increasing interest in OTs as PNs by demonstrating the alignment between the OT competencies and roles and functions of OTs working within PNPs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".