ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A scoping review of the characteristics, responsibilities, implementations and evaluations of digital navigators in healthcare.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status and Associated Factors of Technophobia Toward Digital Health Technologies Among Older Patients With Stroke: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Digital Mental Health Research Priorities, Revisited for the AI and Large Language Model Era.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of various tools and technologies has contributed to the creation of new roles in healthcare, such as digital navigators, who support both clinicians and patients with the adoption and sustained use of these technologies. The digital navigator role is gaining traction for its potential to be adapted and scaled across diverse healthcare settings. However, the formalization of digital navigator roles in healthcare remains limited. This review presents a comprehensive summary of the characteristics of digital navigator roles and their reported implementation practice characteristics. This review utilized the PRISMA-ScR checklist and included 78 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States (85.9%) and used qualitative (35.9%) or mixed-methods (30.8%), with mobile apps (60.3%) and telemedicine/virtual care (30.8%) being the most frequently reported technologies for which digital navigators provided support. Although available material and human resources were frequently discussed as key determinants of implementation success, only a few studies reported the use of financial strategies (e.g., securing funding). Other insights generated from this review include working toward standardizing core competencies, clearly defining the scope of the role, and documenting caseloads and intensities of training that digital navigators receive before and during the role.
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.