ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Exploring the value and acceptability of a patient navigator program for people who inject drugs and are hospitalized for bacterial infections: patients', community organization and healthcare workers' perspectives.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitalizations for bacterial infections are often difficult for people who inject drugs (PWID) and healthcare workers, in part due to biases and stigma associated with substance use, patients' competing needs, such as pain and withdrawal management, and strict antibiotic treatment protocols. In recent years, peer navigators have been introduced as a strategy to reduce stigma and bridge the gap between patients and healthcare workers, but little is known about their involvement in hospitalization settings. The aim of this study was to assess the value of adding a peer navigator program and to evaluate the elements that key stakeholders identified as essential for the program to be successful.
methodsThis was a qualitative study using focus groups. The interview guide was collaboratively developed by ethicists, physicians, and a person with lived experience and validated with a PWID and a community worker. Three two-hour focus groups were conducted in February 2022 with PWID, community organizations and healthcare workers. Descriptive and interpretive thematic analyses were carried out.
resultsNineteen people (5 PWID, 6 community organization workers, 8 healthcare workers) participated in the focus groups. The final coding strategy involved 4 main themes: challenges in current care, positive aspects of current care, aspirations for quality care, the contribution of peer navigators as a solution to current challenges and the realization of aspirations. Improvements in the quality of care should focus on an approach centered on patients' values and aspirations; improving the current hospital environment, particularly in terms of training and communication; and encouraging collaborative partnerships with all parties involved. The integration of peer navigators seems to be a promising strategy for improving communication and trust and, consequently, to facilitate shared decision-making and adapted care.
conclusionsOur study showed that any innovative model should be centered on patients' needs and values and therefore co-constructed with them and other parties involved, notably the community organizations offering services to these patients. The inclusion of well-trained and well-supported peer navigators has the potential to improve care and work toward achieving aspirations of quality care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.