Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39382077›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Patient navigator programmes for children and adolescents with chronic diseases.

Rowena Lalji, Lee Koh, Anna Francis, Rabia Khalid, Chandana Guha, David W Johnson, Germaine Wong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Baseline characteristics of participants in the NAVKIDSPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Implementing Patient Navigation for Children With CKD.Kidney international reports · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Rowena LaljiThe Centre for Kidney Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Lee KohDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Starship Children's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Anna FrancisThe Centre for Kidney Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Rabia KhalidSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Chandana GuhaSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David W JohnsonMetro South Kidney and Transplant Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia.
Germaine WongCentre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a substantial global improvement in infant and child mortality from communicable diseases since the early 1990s there is now a growing burden of chronic disease in children and adolescents worldwide, mimicking the trend seen in the adult population. Chronic diseases in children and adolescents can affect all aspects of their well-being and function with these burdens and their health-related consequences often carried into adulthood. Up to one third of disability-adjusted life years for children and adolescents globally are a result of chronic disease. This has profound implications for the broader family unit, communities, and health systems in which these children and young people reside. Models of chronic care delivery for children and adolescents with chronic disease have traditionally been adapted from adult models. There is a growing recognition that children and adolescents with chronic diseases have a unique set of healthcare needs. Their needs extend beyond disease education and management appropriate to the developmental stage of the child, to encompass psychological well-being for the entire family and a holistic care approach focusing on the social determinants of health. It is for this reason that patient navigators have been proposed as a potential intervention to help fulfil this critical healthcare gap. Patient navigators are trained medical or non-medical personnel (e.g. lay health workers, community health workers, nurses, or people with lived experience) who provide guidance for the patients (and their primary caregivers) as they move through complex (and often bewildering) medical and social systems. The navigator may deliver education, help to co-ordinate patient care, be an advocate for the patient (and their primary caregivers), or combinations of these. Patient navigators can assist people with a chronic illness (especially those who are vulnerable or from a marginalised population, or both) to better understand their diagnoses, treatment options, and available resources. As there is considerable variation in the purpose, design, and target population of patient navigator programmes, there is a need to systematically review and summarise the existing literature on the effectiveness of navigator programmes in children and young adults with chronic disease.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of patient navigator programmes in children and adolescents with chronic diseases. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos up to 20 January 2023 for related systematic reviews using search terms relevant to this review. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov for primary studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials reporting the effect of patient navigator interventions on children and adolescents (aged 18 years or younger) with any chronic disease in hospital or community settings. Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full text to identify studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data using a standard data extraction form. We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as mean differences (MD), where studies used the same scale, or standardised mean differences (SMD), where studies used different scales, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used subgroup and univariate meta-regression to assess reasons for between-study differences. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN

resultsWe included 17 studies (2895 randomised participants). All studies compared patient navigators with standard care. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was undertaken only for those studies that had the same duration of patient navigator intervention and follow-up/reporting of outcome measures. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of patient navigator programmes compared with standard care on self-reported quality of life of children with chronic illness (SMD 0.63, 95% CI -0.20 to 1.47; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence at present to support the use of patient navigator programmes for children and adolescents with chronic diseases. The current evidence is based on limited data with very low-certainty evidence. Further studies are likely to significantly change these results.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseasePatient NavigationAdolescentChildHumans

Identifiers

PMID39382077
PMCPMC11462635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.