Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33212491›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2021

Is patient navigation a solution to the problem of "leaving no one behind"? A scoping review of evidence from low-income countries.

Sarah Louart, Emmanuel Bonnet, Valéry Ridde

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. "Float[ing] in the Middle" Nurse Navigators and the Interface of Access to Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah LouartUniv. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8019 - CLERSE - Centre Lillois d'Études et de Recherches sociologiques et Économiques, F-59000 Lille, France.
Emmanuel BonnetInstitute for Research on Sustainable Development, UMI Résiliences 236, Bondy, France.
Valéry RiddeInstitute for Research on Sustainable Development, CEPED (IRD-Université de Paris), Université de Paris, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, 45 Rue des Saints-Pères, Paris 75006, France.
Centre Lillois d'Etudes et de Recherches Sociologiques et Economiques · FRInstitut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient navigation interventions, which are designed to enable patients excluded from health systems to overcome the barriers they face in accessing care, have multiplied in high-income countries since the 1990s. However, in low-income countries (LICs), indigents are generally excluded from health policies despite the international paradigm of universal health coverage (UHC). Fee exemption interventions have demonstrated their limits and it is now necessary to act on other dimensions of access to healthcare. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the interventions implemented in LICs to support the indigents throughout their care pathway. The aim of this paper is to synthesize what is known about patient navigation interventions to facilitate access to modern health systems for vulnerable populations in LICs. We therefore conducted a scoping review to identify all patient navigation interventions in LICs. We found 60 articles employing a total of 48 interventions. Most of these interventions targeted traditional beneficiaries such as people living with HIV, pregnant women and children. We utilized the framework developed by Levesque et al. (Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health 2013;12:18) to analyse the interventions. All acted on the ability to perceive, 34 interventions on the ability to reach, 30 on the ability to engage, 8 on the ability to pay and 6 on the ability to seek. Evaluations of these interventions were encouraging, as they often appeared to lead to improved health indicators and service utilization rates and reduced attrition in care. However, no intervention specifically targeted indigents and very few evaluations differentiated the impact of the intervention on the poorest populations. It is therefore necessary to test navigation interventions to enable those who are worst off to overcome the barriers they face. It is a major ethical issue that health policies leave no one behind and that UHC does not benefit everyone except the poorest.

Indexed as

Patient NavigationPovertyChildDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansIncomePregnancyUniversal Health Insuranceaccess to health careindigentsPatient navigationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID33212491
PMCPMC7938515
OpenAlexW3099584172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.