Scoping Review on the Use of Navigation Services to Improve Accessibility of Programming for People With Intellectual Disabilities.
Jennifer Christianson-Barker, Arielle Lomness, Nour Youssef and 5 others
PMID 40708490WHAT IT FOUND
Families described navigation support as making access to services ten times easier by handling fragmented systems.
Navigators reduced wait times and improved provider collaboration. Benefits were greatest for those facing language barriers or poverty, though navigator burnout and unclear roles remain common challenges.
Key findings
01Thirty-four included studies reported that navigation services improved access to programs and services.
02Navigation support was found to reduce wait times for diagnosis and improve efficiency in evaluation processes.
03Twenty-two studies highlighted that navigators increased collaboration among service providers by acting as a single point of contact.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included studies focusing on autism, even though individuals with autism do not always have a co-occurring intellectual disability. No quality appraisal was conducted for the included studies, which is optional in scoping reviews but limits the assessment of evidence strength. The definition of 'government services' was widely interpreted due to varying funding models across jurisdictions. The search was limited to English-language publications, potentially excluding relevant evidence from other regions.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Accessibility Standards Canada. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reported positive impacts as evidence from a controlled trial. This is a scoping review that maps existing literature, many of which are qualitative or descriptive. It shows what has been reported in the field, not necessarily what causes improved outcomes in a measurable, controlled way.