Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 20;13(2):e0191980.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191980. eCollection 2018.

Patient Navigators for People With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

Free PMC article

Patient Navigators for People With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

Kerry A McBrien et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article


Background: People with chronic diseases experience barriers to managing their diseases and accessing available health services. Patient navigator programs are increasingly being used to help people with chronic diseases navigate and access health services.

Objective: The objective of this review was to summarize the evidence for patient navigator programs in people with a broad range of chronic diseases, compared to usual care.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Social Work Abstracts from inception to August 23, 2017. We also searched the reference lists of included articles. We included original reports of randomized controlled trials of patient navigator programs compared to usual care for adult and pediatric patients with any one of a defined set of chronic diseases.

Results: From a total of 14,672 abstracts, 67 unique studies fit our inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 were in cancer, 8 in diabetes, 7 in HIV/AIDS, 4 in cardiovascular disease, 2 in chronic kidney disease, 1 in dementia and 1 in patients with more than one condition. Program characteristics varied considerably. Primary outcomes were most commonly process measures, and 45 of 67 studies reported a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that patient navigator programs improve processes of care, although few studies assessed patient experience, clinical outcomes or costs. The inability to definitively outline successful components remains a key uncertainty in the use of patient navigator programs across chronic diseases. Given the increasing popularity of patient navigators, future studies should use a consistent definition for patient navigation and determine which elements of this intervention are most likely to lead to improved outcomes.

Trial registration: PROSPERO #CRD42013005857.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Summary of risk of bias across studies.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Number of studies reporting statistically significant positive vs null outcomes (primary or secondary) by outcome category.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 14 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;87(1):4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.007 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. How Do Sicker Canadians with Chronic Disease Rate the Health Care System? Results from the 2011 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults. Toronto: Health Council of Canada, 2011.
    1. Broemeling AM, Watson DE, Prebtani F. Population patterns of chronic health conditions, co-morbidity and healthcare use in Canada: implications for policy and practice. Healthcare quarterly (Toronto, Ont). 2008;11(3):70–6. Epub 2008/06/10. . - PubMed
    1. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ. 1998;317(7160):720–6. Epub 1998/09/11. . - PMC - PubMed

Grant support

This research was funded by an Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions (AI-HS) team grant to the Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (ICDC), project ID #10007987 ( to Brenda Hemmelgarn and the Canadian Diabetes Association (CA) to Kerry A McBrien. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.