ArticleBMJ open2024
Patient engagement in the development and implementation of navigation services: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.