Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35270537›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Patient Navigation-Who Needs What? Awareness of Patient Navigators and Ranking of Their Tasks in the General Population in Germany.

Susanne Schnitzer, Raphael Kohl, Hella Fügemann, Kathrin Gödde, Judith Stumm, Fabian Engelmann, Ulrike Grittner, Nina Rieckmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Navigational health literacy of the population in Germany].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. HLSInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
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

8 authors.

Susanne SchnitzerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3871-7053
Raphael KohlCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Hella FügemannBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, 14770 Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Kathrin GöddeCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Public Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Judith StummCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5815-5353
Fabian EngelmannKassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), Geschäftsbereich Sicherstellung und Versorgungsstruktur, Abteilung Versorgungsstruktur, 10592 Berlin, Germany.
Ulrike GrittnerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute for Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2595-0224
Nina RieckmannCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Public Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the awareness of patient navigation (PN) in the general population in Germany and to assess which navigator tasks are considered most important. The analysis drew on a 2019 nationwide telephone survey of 6110 adults. We compared rankings of emotional support, administrative support and information among respondents with and without experience of patient navigation. One-fifth of the sample reported having heard of PNs; 13% of this group already had experience with PN. In both groups, the majority (>47%) considered assistance with applications to be most important. This was particularly the case among younger adults and those with a chronic disease. Within the inexperienced group, higher educated people had higher odds of ranking provision of information as most important for them, whereas women and those without a partner had higher odds of ranking emotional support as the most important task. This study shows that the majority of people predominantly expect PN services to offer administrative support, irrespective of their socioeconomic and health status. Whether these expectations are met by the diverse existing PN programs, which often have a strong focus on other tasks (e.g., increasing health literacy), has yet to be evaluated.

Indexed as

Patient NavigationAdultFemaleGermanyHumanschronic diseaseemotional supporthealth informationpatient navigationpopulation surveysocial supportsociodemographic characteristicssubjective health

Identifiers

PMID35270537
PMCPMC8910373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.