Patient Navigators for CKD and Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: To what degree and how patient navigators improve clinical outcomes for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney failure is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to summarize patient navigator program design, evidence, and implementation in kidney disease. STUDY DESIGN: A search strategy was developed for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the impact of navigators on outcomes in the setting of CKD and kidney failure. Articles were identified from various databases. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and identified those meeting the inclusion criteria. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with CKD or kidney failure (in-center hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis, or kidney transplantation). SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Studies that compared patient navigators with a control, without limits on size, duration, setting, or language. Studies focusing solely on patient education were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted from full texts and risk of bias was assessed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: No meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 3,371 citations, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria including 14 original studies. Navigators came from various healthcare backgrounds including nursing (n=6), social worker (n=2), medical interpreter (n=1), research (n=1), and also included kidney transplant recipients (n=2) and non-medical individuals (n=2). Navigators focused mostly on education (n=9) and support (n = 6). Navigators were used for patients with CKD (n=5), peritoneal dialysis (n=2), in-center hemodialysis (n=4), kidney transplantation (n=2), but not home hemodialysis. Navigators improved transplant workup and listing, peritoneal dialysis utilization, and patient knowledge. LIMITATIONS: Many studies did not show benefits across other outcomes, were at a high risk of bias, and none reported cost-effectiveness or patient-reported experience measures. CONCLUSIONS: Navigators improve some health outcomes for CKD but there was heterogeneity in their structure and function. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate navigator program efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
