You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 4
  • Hospital-based patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers: a scoping review protocol

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Health services research
Protocol
Hospital-based patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers: a scoping review protocol
  1. Shelley Doucet1,2,3,
  2. Alison Luke1,2,3,
  3. Grailing Anthonisen1,2,
  4. Richelle Witherspoon1,3,4,
  5. A Luke MacNeill1,2,
  6. Lillian MacNeill1,2,
  7. Katherine J Kelly1,5,
  8. Taylor Fearon1,2
  1. 1Centre for Research in Integrated Care, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
  2. 2Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick Saint John, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
  3. 3University of New Brunswick (UNB) Saint John Collaboration for Evidence-Informed Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada
  4. 4University of New Brunswick Libraries, University of New Brunswick Fredericton, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
  5. 5Applied Human Sciences, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Shelley Doucet; sdoucet{at}unb.ca

Abstract

Introduction Patients who experience injury-related trauma tend to have complex care needs and often require support from many different care providers. Many patients experience gaps in care while in the hospital and during transitions in care. Providing access to integrated care can improve outcomes for these patients. Patient navigation is one approach to improving the integration of care and proactively supporting patients and their caregivers as they navigate the healthcare system. The objective of this scoping review is to map the literature on the characteristics and impact of hospital-based patient navigation programmes that support patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers.

Methods and analysis This review will be conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. The review will include primary research studies, unpublished studies and evaluation reports related to patient navigation programmes for injury-related trauma in hospital settings. The databases to be searched will include CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, PsycINFO (EBSCO) and MEDLINE (Ovid). Two independent reviewers will screen articles for relevance against the inclusion criteria. Results will be presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram and follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The extracted data will be presented both tabularly and narratively.

Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required, as the scoping review will synthesise information from publicly available material. To disseminate the findings of this review, the authors will submit the results for publication in a medical or health sciences journal, present at relevant conferences and use other knowledge translation strategies to reach diverse stakeholders (eg, host webinars, share infographics).

  • TRAUMA MANAGEMENT
  • HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
  • Organisation of health services
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055750

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This scoping review will conform to the rigorous methodology manual of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).

    • The search strategy was adapted for implementation across the five database, including CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, PsycINFO (EBSCO) and MEDLINE (Ovid), as well as a grey literature search.

    • No quality assessment of the articles will be performed; JBI methodology does not require quality assessments for scoping reviews.

    • Only articles in English and French in will be considered for inclusion.

    Background

    Injury-related trauma refers to physical injuries that occur suddenly and with enough severity to require immediate medical attention.1 There are many mechanisms of injury-related trauma, such as blunt force, penetrative force and burning. This can result in wounds, broken bones and internal organ damage, among other injuries. Three of the five most common causes of death among individuals between the ages of 5 and 29 are from injury-related trauma.2

    Patients who experience injury-related trauma often have complex care needs and frequently require extensive support from multiple care providers during their hospital stay and recovery.3 Many of these patients experience gaps in care while in the hospital and when they are transferred elsewhere, whether to their home, to a rehabilitation facility or to another hospital.4–6 Other issues involving this population that have been identified in the literature include disrupted communication and information flow between services7; a lack of support for parents during paediatric trauma cases8; patients not being completely informed about their treatment options4; and patients being excluded from the decision making around their own course of treatment, which often include several phases.4

    Individuals and their caregivers with access to integrated care tend to experience improved outcomes.9 Integrated care involves a comprehensive delivery of services, which are designed to meet both the specific needs of the individual and the general needs of the population.10 Evidence shows that the benefits of integrated care include reduced hospital admissions, reduced readmissions, improved treatment guideline adherence and improved quality of life.10 Patient navigation is a relatively new approach to integrated care that supports patients and families in overcoming gaps and barriers to care by providing patient centred care designed to meet the individual needs of patients, their families and communities.11 It helps patients to access the necessary resources and services to support their needs whether in hospital, during transitions in care or managing their condition at home.11 Patient navigation supports integrated care at multiple levels through a variety of means.11 This includes creating and coordinating a patient’s care plan across multiple providers at a micro-level, as well as supporting capacity building with care providers at the meso-level.11 At the macro-level, patient navigation can help ensure integrated care by identifying the needs and adapting services accordingly for an entire patient population.11

    While its origins are in cancer care,12 patient navigation has been utilised to support the care of a variety of conditions, such as diabetes,13 kidney disease,14 mental health15 and HIV.16 It has also been adapted to a range of settings, including community settings and primary care clinics.11 17 Patient navigation programmes improve the integration of care and proactively support patients and their caregivers as they navigate the healthcare system.17 For instance, research shows that patient navigation can reduce stress and improve overall experience with the healthcare system18; increase engagement with mental health services19; improve clinical care20 and reduce hospital readmissions.20 Patient navigation can also benefit patients who experience injury-related trauma, their families and the care team by offering an integrative, collaborative approach to care and providing consistent and reliable support.20–22 As this population faces increased risk of unplanned readmissions, the support provided through navigation programmes can help reduce these readmissions.6 21 Patients who experience injury-related trauma frequently require care from multiple types of healthcare providers,3 and patient navigation can facilitate coordination between those care providers.17 18 It can also reduce barriers for patients both while accessing multiple care providers across the care system, as well as the gaps in care that frequently occur during transitions by coordinating and integrating care and advocating to fill those gaps at a systems level.4–6

    Recently, there has been an increased interest in patient navigation programmes across various health-related contexts and settings.23 As such, it will be useful to explore patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers in the hospital setting. The purpose of this scoping review is to map literature on the characteristics and impact of hospital-based patient navigation programmes in this area. Because patient navigation is a service delivery approach that is just emerging in this area of practice, a scoping review will be beneficial to understanding the range of hospital-based navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers. It will also allow us to explore patient and health system outcomes reported in the literature. Generally, this review will provide information to support the development of hospital-based patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma, their families and care team members. Specifically, this review will inform the development of a pilot programme of patient navigation for trauma patients in New Brunswick, Canada.

    Methods and analysis

    Scoping reviews are used to summarise the available knowledge on a particular topic,24 and provide a structured and rigorous methodology for examining broad and exploratory research questions.25 A preliminary search of PubMed, PROSPERO and JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports confirmed that there are no current or ongoing reviews on this topic.

    The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews.26 The scoping review will also follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist,24 which will ensure the review is transparently reported and useful to its users.27 Our study began in June 2021 and the planned end date is June 2022.

    Eligibility criteria

    Participants

    This scoping review will focus on hospital based-patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and/or their caregivers. Patients who experience injury-related trauma include individuals who experience physical injuries that occur suddenly and with enough severity to require immediate medical attention.1 The review is not specific to any injury-related trauma, condition, sex, age, ethnicity or other demographic variable. While the treatments for and the needs of patients who experience injury-related trauma vary according to the nature of their injuries, in accordance with the objective of a scoping review,24 this review seeks to identify what literature exists on patient navigation programmes across the spectrum of traumatic physical injury. Because we anticipate there to be a small number of articles, we do not want to limit the scoping review to any one specific type of traumatic injury. Articles that address a variety of patient navigation programmes, including injury-related programmes, will be included if the characteristics of the injury-related trauma navigation programmes are reported separately; if the characteristics are not reported separately, the articles will be excluded.

    A caregiver refers to an unpaid individual (usually a spouse, family member or friend) who provides most of the informal care or support of patients who experience injury-related trauma.28 Excluded from this review are articles that address patients who experience non-injury-related trauma (eg, emotional trauma).

    Concept

    The main concept is characteristics of patient navigation programmes. Included articles must contain a discussion on the characteristics of the patient navigation programme. Patient navigation will be defined as a partnership between a patient, a caregiver or member(s) of the care team and a patient navigator (including professional, lay or peer navigators) who facilitates timely access to health and/or community services and resources and fosters self-management and autonomy through education and emotional support.17 29 We will define programmes as interventions or services intended to improve the navigation of services and resources for patients who experience physical trauma and their caregivers. To ensure consistency, programmes will be included if they align with this definition. For example, studies where the navigator’s main role is to deliver clinical care (e.g., triage) will be excluded. Patient navigation programmes that include various titles for the role of the patient navigator, such as nurse navigator, care navigator, peer navigator and lay navigator, will be considered. This review will exclude programmes provided by case managers. There is some overlap between the roles of patient navigators and case managers, such as care coordination. However, navigators typically provide informational and emotional support, while case managers can provide clinical care.17 30 Patient navigators help individuals navigate through existing services and can advocate for missing services, whereas case managers fill this need by providing clinical care and acting as a care provider.17 30

    Impact, the secondary concept of this review, is the extent to which an intervention was effective in terms of its intended and unintended health and social outcomes.31 The American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines the evaluation of a programme’s impact as the assessment of a programme’s effectiveness to achieve its goals (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention32 p1). This review will consider articles that employ various evaluation methods, such as case control studies; analysis of chart data or administrative data; and qualitative studies. It will include negative and positive impacts. Note, however, that articles do not need to report on impact to be included. Articles can be included if they describe the main concept, which is the characteristics of injury-related trauma navigation programmes.

    Context

    This review will consider articles where the patient navigation programme is delivered in a hospital setting. While we will include hospital-based patient navigation programmes that offer services to support patients who experience injury-related trauma and/or their caregivers in the community (e.g., with the transition from hospital to home), programmes delivered solely within the community will be excluded. Programmes that support patients during their transitions must begin in hospital prior to discharge to be included. There will be no geographical limit to this study as the intent is to explore the characteristics and impact of patient navigation within hospital settings across all locations.

    The five steps for JBI scoping reviews

    JBI recommends the five following steps when conducting a scoping review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results.24 26

    Step 1: identifying the research questions

    The research questions for this scoping review are:

    1. What are the characteristics reported in the literature of hospital-based patient navigation programmes to support patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers?

    2. What is the existing evidence in the literature on the impact of hospital-based patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers?

    Step 2: identifying relevant studies

    This scoping review will consider all qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies for inclusion, except for systematic, scoping and literature reviews. The reference lists of relevant reviews, as well as articles included in the review, will be hand-searched for additional articles. Other literature, such as unpublished studies and/or evaluation reports, will also be considered for inclusion. Only full texts of articles will be considered for review. The review will be limited to literature published in or after 1990 because that is the year patient navigation was conceptualised.33 Due to the linguistic capabilities of those conducting this review, only articles in English or French will be considered for inclusion.

    A JBI-trained librarian (RW) conducted an initial search of the CINAHL database to identify articles on this topic. The librarian formulated a search strategy drawing from the words contained in the titles, abstracts and subject descriptors of these articles. Additionally, the search strategy drew from a number of knowledge syntheses on related topics, as well as the search strategy reported in Doucet et al (2022).30 Once the search terms were identified, they were tested in CINAHL in a variety of combinations and using a variety of search fields until it was determined that the search results both completely reflected the scope of the research available on this topic and avoided unnecessary noise from irrelevant results. The search strategy is designed to capture the varied terminology that describes the role of patient navigator, such as care coordinator and pivot nurse. The terms used in the search are based on a thorough assessment of the terms most common to the research area. Based on this review of the terminology, it is likely that the terms used captured a significant portion of the literature on the topic. No limits were applied to the search.

    Next, the search was adapted and implemented across five databases, which are (1) CINAHL with Full-Text (EBSCOhost); (2) Embase (Elsevier); (3) ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health (ProQuest); (4) PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and (5) MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R) 1946 to Present (Ovid). Backwards and forwards citation searches will be performed to identify additional studies. We will do so by searching the reference lists of included studies and using Scopus (Elsevier) to identify and screen studies citing these references. An example of the search strategy applied to MEDLINE is noted in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Search strategy: Syntax used in the MEDLINE (Ovid) search strategy, completed 6 June 2021

    The unpublished literature search will use ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; Google and Google Scholar; and targeted searching of relevant websites, such as websites for known patient navigation or trauma-related organisations and programmes. We will use the following keywords in our search: patient navigation, injury related trauma patients, hospital-based care and inpatient. Sources will be screened in Google and Google Scholar according to titles until the point of saturation (ie, after two pages are passed without opening a link). We will include a full list of the grey literature databases and corresponding keyword searches in the final report.

    Step 3: study selection

    Articles identified by the keyword searches and hand searches of reference lists will undergo a careful selection process. All potentially relevant articles will be collated and uploaded to Zotero V.5.0 software (Zotero, Fairfax, USA) and duplicates will be removed. The remaining records will then be uploaded to Covidence (Covidence, Melbourne, Australia) and any missed duplicates will be removed. Next, two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria (see table 2). Reviewers will meet to discuss any discrepancies and a third independent reviewer will be available to resolve any outstanding conflicts.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Once titles and abstracts have been screened, two independent reviewers will screen the full text of the relevant articles against the inclusion criteria. Any conflicts will be resolved either through discussion or by a third independent reviewer. The reviewers will record the reasons for excluding the full texts of articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria.

    Step 4: charting the data

    Two reviewers will independently extract data from the articles using a data extraction tool, which was developed by the research team using Microsoft Excel (see table 3). Any disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. The data extraction tool was piloted by the research team to ensure comprehensiveness. Extracted data will include specific information about the population, concept, context and key findings related to the scoping review’s objective. We will modify the data extraction tool if necessary during the course of the review. Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review. Where required, authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Data extraction instrument

    Step 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results

    The results of the search will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram.24 The extracted data will be presented in tabular format in a way that reflects the scoping review’s objective. It will include data such as author(s); publication year; type of source (e.g., published qualitative study, unpublished programme evaluation); programme description, including geographic location, setting, population/type of injury, severity of injury, navigator title and navigator background; and impact (where applicable), barriers (where applicable) and facilitators (where applicable). We will also present the results in narrative format, describing how the results relate to the objective of the scoping review.

    Ethics and dissemination

    Ethics approval is not required to conduct this study because the scoping review will synthesise information from publicly available material. To disseminate the findings of this review, the authors will submit the results for publication in a medical or health sciences journal, present at relevant conferences and use other knowledge translation strategies to reach relevant stakeholders (e.g., host webinars, share infographics).

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank our team members from Trauma New Brunswick, Ian Watson and Pauline Waggott, for providing feedback on the scoping review protocol.

    References

    1. ↵
      National Institute of general medical sciencesNational Institute of general medical sciences. Physical Trauma [Internet] 2020. [Epub ahead of print: Available from] https://www.nigms.nih.gov/education/fact-sheets/Pages/physical-trauma.aspx
    2. ↵
      World Health organization.. Injuries and violence [Internet] 2021 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/injuries-and-violence
    3. ↵
      1. Perry A,
      2. Mallah MD,
      3. Cunningham KW, et al
      . Pathway to success: implementation of a multiprofessional acute trauma health care team decreased length of stay and cost in patients with neurological injury requiring tracheostomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2020;88:176–9.doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002494pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31464872
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Braaf S,
      2. Ameratunga S,
      3. Nunn A, et al
      . Patient-identified information and communication needs in the context of major trauma. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:163.doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2971-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514689
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Gotlib Conn L,
      2. Zwaiman A,
      3. DasGupta T, et al
      . Trauma patient discharge and care transition experiences: identifying opportunities for quality improvement in trauma centres. Injury 2018;49:97–103.doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.09.028pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988066
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Rosario ER,
      2. Espinoza L,
      3. Kaplan S, et al
      . Patient navigation for traumatic brain injury promotes community re-integration and reduces re-hospitalizations. Brain Inj 2017;31:1340–7.doi:10.1080/02699052.2017.1325937pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28650255
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Catchpole KR,
      2. Gangi A,
      3. Blocker RC, et al
      . Flow disruptions in trauma care handoffs. J Surg Res 2013;184:586–91.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.02.038pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23587454
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Wiseman T,
      2. Curtis K,
      3. Young A, et al
      . 'It's turned our world upside down': Support needs of parents of critically injured children during Emergency Department admission - A qualitative inquiry. Australas Emerg Care 2018;21:137–42.doi:10.1016/j.auec.2018.09.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30998889
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Miller AR,
      2. Condin CJ,
      3. McKellin WH, et al
      . Continuity of care for children with complex chronic health conditions: parents' perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9:242.doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-242pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20025770
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Martínez-González NA,
      2. Berchtold P,
      3. Ullman K, et al
      . Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: a meta-review. Int J Qual Health Care 2014;26:561–70.doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu071pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25108537
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Doucet S,
      2. Luke A,
      3. Splane J, et al
      . Patient navigation as an approach to improve the integration of care: the case of NaviCare/SoinsNavi. Int J Integr Care 2019;19:7.doi:10.5334/ijic.4648pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31798358
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Freeman HP,
      2. Rodriguez RL
      . History and principles of patient navigation. Cancer 2011;117:3537–40.doi:10.1002/cncr.26262
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Loskutova NY,
      2. Tsai AG,
      3. Fisher EB, et al
      . Patient navigators connecting patients to community resources to improve diabetes outcomes. J Am Board Fam Med 2016;29:78–89.doi:10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150048pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26769880
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Sullivan C,
      2. Leon JB,
      3. Sayre SS, et al
      . Impact of navigators on completion of steps in the kidney transplant process: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2012;7:1639–45.doi:10.2215/CJN.11731111pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22798540
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Bieling PJ,
      2. Madsen V,
      3. Zipursky RB
      . A 'navigator' model in emerging mental illness? Early Interv Psychiatry 2013;7:451–7.doi:10.1111/eip.12078pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23889846
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Koester KA,
      2. Morewitz M,
      3. Pearson C, et al
      . Patient navigation facilitates medical and social services engagement among HIV-infected individuals leaving jail and returning to the community. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2014;28:82–90.doi:10.1089/apc.2013.0279pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24517539
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Kelly KJ,
      2. Doucet S,
      3. Luke A
      . Exploring the roles, functions, and background of patient navigators and case managers: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud 2019;98:27–47.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.05.016pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31271977
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Luke A,
      2. Luck KE,
      3. Doucet S
      . Experiences of caregivers as clients of a patient navigation program for children and youth with complex care needs: a qualitative descriptive study. Int J Integr Care 2020;20:327–41.doi:10.5334/ijic.5451pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33250675
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Diaz-Linhart Y,
      2. Silverstein M,
      3. Grote N, et al
      . Patient navigation for mothers with depression who have children in head start: a pilot study. Soc Work Public Health 2016;31:504–10.doi:10.1080/19371918.2016.1160341pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27195704
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Hsu LL,
      2. Green NS,
      3. Donnell Ivy E, et al
      . Community health workers as support for sickle cell care. Am J Prev Med 2016;51:S87–98.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.01.016pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27320471
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Hall EC,
      2. Tyrrell RL,
      3. Doyle KE, et al
      . Trauma transitional care coordination: a mature system at work. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2018;84:711–7.doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001818pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29370060
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Valaitis RK,
      2. Carter N,
      3. Lam A, et al
      . Implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs linking primary care with community-based health and social services: a scoping literature review. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:116.doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2046-1pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166776
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Hopkins J,
      2. Mumber MP
      . Patient navigation through the cancer care continuum: an overview. J Oncol Pract 2009;5:150–2.doi:10.1200/JOP.0943501pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20856626
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Lillie E,
      3. Zarin W, et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Colquhoun HL,
      2. Levac D,
      3. O'Brien KK, et al
      . Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1291–4.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25034198
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Peters MDJ,
      2. Marnie C,
      3. Tricco AC, et al
      . Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18:2119–26.doi:10.11124/JBIES-20-00167pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038124
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.doi:10.1136/bmj.n71pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782057
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Bastawrous M
      . Caregiver burden--a critical discussion. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:431–41.doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.10.005pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23131724
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Luke A,
      2. Doucet S,
      3. Azar R
      . Paediatric patient navigation models of care in Canada: an environmental scan. Paediatr Child Health 2018;23:e46–55.doi:10.1093/pch/pxx176pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29769815
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Doucet S,
      2. Luke A,
      3. Anthonisen G, et al
      . Patient navigation programs for people with dementia, their caregivers, and members of their care team: a scoping review protocol. JBI Evid Synth 2022;20:270–6.doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00049
      OpenUrl
    31. ↵
      1. Spiegelman D
      . Evaluating public health interventions: 1. examples, definitions, and a personal note. Am J Public Health 2016;106:70–3.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302923pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26562122
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Types of evaluation [Internet]. Division of STD Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/std/Program/pupestd/Types%20of%20Evaluation.pdf
    33. ↵
      1. Freeman HP
      . Patient navigation: a community centered approach to reducing cancer mortality. J Cancer Educ 2006;21:S11–14.doi:10.1207/s15430154jce2101s_4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17020496
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SD is coleading the research study. AL is coleading the research study. GA cowrote and edited the protocol. RW designed and ran the search strategy. ALM cowrote and edited the protocol. LM supported the writing process and edited the protocol. KJR supported the writing process and edited the protocol. TF supported the writing process of the protocol.

    • Funding This work was supported by the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation, grant number POF-0000000021.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.