Dataset Information

Patient navigators facilitating access to primary care: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Patient navigators are a promising mechanism to link patients with primary care. While navigators have been used in population health promotion and prevention programmes, their impact on access to primary care is not clear. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the use of patient navigators to facilitate access to primary care and how they were defined and described, their components and the extent to which they were patient centred. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We used the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review method. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest Medical, other key databases and grey literature for studies reported in English from January 2000 to April 2016. We defined a patient navigator as a person or process creating a connection or link between a person needing primary care and a primary care provider. Our target population was people without a regular source of, affiliation or connection with primary care. Studies were included if they reported on participants who were connected to primary care by patient navigation and attended or made an appointment with a primary care provider. Data analysis involved descriptive numerical summaries and content analysis. RESULTS:Twenty studies were included in the final scoping review. Most studies referred to 'patient navigator' or 'navigation' as the mechanism of connection to primary care. As such, we grouped the components according to Freeman's nine-principle framework of patient navigation. Seventeen studies included elements of patient-centred care: informed and involved patient, receptive and responsive health professionals and a coordinated, supportive healthcare environment. CONCLUSIONS:Patient navigators may assist to connect people requiring primary care to appropriate providers and extend the concept of patient-centred care across different healthcare settings. Navigation requires further study to determine impact and cost-effectiveness and explore the experience of patients and their families.

SUBMITTER: Peart A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5875656 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient navigators facilitating access to primary care: a scoping review.

Peart Annette A Lewis Virginia V Brown Ted T Russell Grant G

BMJ open 20180317 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Patient navigators are a promising mechanism to link patients with primary care. While navigators have been used in population health promotion and prevention programmes, their impact on access to primary care is not clear. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the use of patient navigators to facilitate access to primary care and how they were defined and described, their components and the extent to which they were patient centred.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>We u ...[more]

PMID: 29550777

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA frequently used feature of electronic patient portals is the viewing of test results. Research on patient portals is abundant and offers evidence to help portal implementers make policy and practice decisions. In contrast, no comparable comprehensive summary of research addresses the direct release of and patient access to test results.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to analyze and synthesize published research focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on the direct release of laboratory, imaging, and radiology results to patients via web portals.MethodsPRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and other databases. Citations were screened in Covidence using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary studies that focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on patient access to laboratory and imaging results via web portals were included. An updated search was conducted up to August 2023. Our review included 27 articles-20 examining patient views, 3 examining provider views, and 4 examining both patient and provider views. Data extraction and inductive data analysis were informed by sensitizing concepts from sociomaterial perspectives, and 15 themes were generated.ResultsPatient perspectives (24 papers) were synthesized using nine themes: (1) patterns of use and patient characteristics; (2) emotional response when viewing the results and uncertainty about their implications; (3) understanding test results; (4) preferences for mode and timing of result release; (5). information seeking and patients' actions motivated by viewing results via a portal; (6) contemplating changes in behavior and managing own health; (7) benefits of accessing test results via a portal; (8) limitations of accessing test results via a portal; and (9) suggestions for portal improvement. Health care provider perspectives (7 papers) were synthetized into six themes: (1) providers' view of benefits of patient access to results via the portal; (2) effects on health care provider workload; (3) concerns about patient anxiety; (4) timing of result release into the patient portal; (5) the method of result release into the patient portal: manual versus automatic release; and (6) the effects of hospital health information technology system on patient quality outcomes.ConclusionsThe timing of the release of test results emerged as a particularly important topic. In some countries, the policy context may motivate immediate release of most tests directly into patient portals. However, our findings aim to make policy makers, health administrators, and other stakeholders aware of factors to consider when making decisions about the timing of result release. This review is sensitive to the characteristics of patient populations and portal technology and can inform result release framework policies. The findings are timely, as patient portals have become more common internationally.

Project description:IntroductionUsing digital health in primary health care (PHC) contributes to reducing costs and travel time, achieving global development goals, improving access, quality and longitudinality of care, and managing health crises. Its evaluation must go beyond the technical-operational aspects to include patient satisfaction, a key element in assessing the quality of care.ObjectiveTo identify and map patient satisfaction (expectations, desires, cultural values) about the adoption of digital health strategies and assess their impact on the quality of care in PHC.MethodsThe review will follow the recommendations proposed by the Joanna's Briggs Institute (JBI) manual, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. and will be conducted in nine stages. The search will be conducted in health studies databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and BVS), gray literature, and preprint repositories (Google Scholar and MedRxiv). Two reviewers will select the studies, and the third will analyze possible conflicts. The inclusion criteria comprise studies that have been made available in their entirety, whether they are primary studies or short communications, as well as the following materials extracted from the gray literature: preprints, manuals, government documents, books, guidelines, theses and dissertations. Exclusion criteria include literature reviews, abstracts, books, conference archives, letters to the editor, duplicates and opinion articles. Data will be analyzed by content analysis and inferential statistics. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) under DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/PUJDB.ResultsThe study aims to understand aspects related to the expectations, desires, and cultural values of patients from different countries, as well as the strengths and critical nodes of the use of digital health on the quality of care in PHC.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To map the existing literature and describe interventions aimed at building the capacity of patients to participate in care during hospitalisation by: (1) describing and categorising the aspects of care targeted by these interventions and (2) identifying the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions. A patient representative participated in all aspects of this project. DESIGN:Scoping review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (Inception -2017). STUDY SELECTION:Studies reporting primary research studies on building the capacity of hospitalised adult patients to participate in care which described or included one or more structured or systematic interventions and described the outcomes for at least the key stakeholder group were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Title and abstract screening and full text screening were conducted by pairs of trained reviewers. One reviewer extracted data, which were verified by a second reviewer. Interventions were classified according to seven aspects of care relevant to hospital settings. BCTs identified in the articles were assigned through consensus of three reviewers. RESULTS:Database searches yielded a total 9899 articles, resulting in 87 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Interventions directed at building patient capacity to participate in care while hospitalised were categorised as those related to improving: patient safety (20.9%); care coordination (5.7%); effective treatment (5.7%) and/or patient-centred care using: bedside nursing handovers (5.7%); communication (29.1%); care planning (14%) or the care environment (19.8%). The majority of studies reported one or more positive outcomes from the defined intervention. Adding new elements (objects) to the environment and restructuring the social and/or physical environment were the most frequently identified BCTs. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of studies to build capacity for participation in care report one or more positive outcomes, although a more comprehensive analysis is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare coordination and continuity of care conceptualize all care providers and organizations involved in health care to ensure the right care at the right time. However, systematic evidence synthesis is lacking in the care coordination of health services. This scoping review synthesizes evidence on different levels of care coordination of primary health care (PHC) and primary care.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of published evidence on healthcare coordination. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched until 30 November 2022 for studies that describe care coordination/continuity of care in PHC and primary care. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We analysed data using a thematic analysis approach and explained themes adopting a multilevel (individual, organizational, and system) analytical framework.ResultsA total of 56 studies were included in the review. Most studies were from upper-middle-income or high-income countries, primarily focusing on continuity/care coordination in primary care. Ten themes were identified in care coordination in PHC/primary care. Four themes under care coordination at the individual level were the continuity of services, linkage at different stages of health conditions (from health promotion to rehabilitation), health care from a life-course (conception to elderly), and care coordination of health services at places (family to hospitals). Five themes under organizational level care coordination included interprofessional, multidisciplinary services, community collaboration, integrated care, and information in care coordination. Finally, a theme under system-level care coordination was related to service management involving multisectoral coordination within and beyond health systems.ConclusionsContinuity and coordination of care involve healthcare provisions from family to health facility throughout the life-course to provide a range of services. Several issues could influence multilevel care coordination, including at the individual (services or users), organizational (providers), and system (departments and sectors) levels. Health systems should focus on care coordination, ensuring types of care per the healthcare needs at different stages of health conditions by a multidisciplinary team. Coordinating multiple technical and supporting stakeholders and sectors within and beyond health sector is also vital for the continuity of care especially in resource-limited health systems and settings.

Dataset Information

Patient navigators facilitating access to primary care: a scoping review.

Publications

Patient navigators facilitating access to primary care: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets