Cited by 21Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesNursing care and research

A Systematic Review on Navigation Programs for Persons Living with Dementia and Their Caregivers

Kokorelias, Kristina M, Shiers-Hanley, Jessica E, Li, Zoe, Hitzig, Sander L·2023·The Gerontologist

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: System navigation programs are becoming more available to meet the needs of patients with complex care needs. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the outcomes of navigation programs for persons with dementia and their family caregivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review methodology was employed. Ten databases were searched for all relevant articles published until October 30, 2021. English-language full-text articles were included if they focused on implemented navigation program(s) that primarily supported persons with dementia who were aged 50 or older. Methodological quality was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale, the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology checklist, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in the review. There was Level 1 evidence for the benefits of system navigation programs on delaying institutionalization, wherein benefits appeared to be specific to interventions that had an in-person component. There was Level 1 (n = 4) and Level 3 (n = 1) evidence on service use from time of diagnosis to continued management of dementia. Finally, Level 1 to Level 5 evidence indicated a number of benefits on caregiver outcomes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: There is strong evidence on the benefits of system navigation for people with dementia on delaying institutionalization and caregiver outcomes, but outcomes across other domains (i.e., functional independence) are less clear, which may be due to the varied approaches within system navigation models of care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnac054

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous efforts often faltered because they relied on fragmented initiatives, short-term funding, or the efforts of individual champions.

    “Previous efforts often faltered because they relied on fragmented initiatives, short-term funding, or the efforts of individual champions [48,49].”

    From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kokorelias, K. M., Shiers-Hanley, J. E., Li, Z., & Hitzig, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Hitzig, Sander L
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2022-04-19
Volume
63
Issue
8
Pages
1341-1350
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W4224304571
Cited by
21
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Alzheimer’s Society of Canada Quality of Life Stream Post-Doctoral
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
dementia, family caregivers, service utilization, caregiver outcomes, functional independence, complex care needs, models of care
MeSH terms
Dementia, Humans, Language, Caregivers, Observational Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review