Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205373›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Population risk stratification tools and interventions for chronic disease management in primary care: a systematic literature review.

Davide Golinelli, Valentina Pecoraro, Dario Tedesco, Antonella Negro, Elena Berti, Maria Domenica Camerlingo, Lucia Alberghini, Matteo Lippi Bruni, Maurizia Rolli, Roberto Grilli

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Beyond Rurality: Individual Socioeconomic Status and Chronic Disease Prevalence.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Nine-year risk stratification and prediction ofFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Davide GolinelliHealth Services Research, Evaluation and Policy Unit, Local Health Authority of Romagna, Ravenna, Italy. davide.golinelli@auslromagna.it.
Valentina PecoraroDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Dario TedescoDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Antonella NegroDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Elena BertiDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Maria Domenica CamerlingoDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Lucia AlberghiniDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo Lippi BruniDepartment of Economics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Maurizia RolliDepartment of Innovation in Healthcare and Social Services, Emilia-Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy.
Roberto GrilliHealth Services Research, Evaluation and Policy Unit, Local Health Authority of Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

Funding

Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Complementary National Plan PNC-I.1 "Research initiatives for innovative technologies and pathways in the health and welfare sector" D.D. 931 of 06/06/2022, PNC0000002 DARE - Digital Lifelong Prevention." - CUP: G65E23000150006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation risk stratification (RS) tools have been proposed to tailor interventions, prioritize resources, and proactively manage high-risk individuals with chronic diseases in primary care settings. This study aims to explore the available evidence on the use of population RS tools in primary care settings, specifically evaluating the impact of targeted interventions based on RS tools on selected chronic patients and healthcare utilization outcomes.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted across multiple electronic databases to identify relevant articles assessing the impact of targeted interventions based on RS tools in the management of chronic disease patients within primary care settings. We included studies meeting the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or before-after studies (BAs); adults with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or dementia; interventions relying on RS tools; comparators with or without RS tools; and outcomes including Emergency Department (ED) visits, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, mortality, and costs.

resultsA total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising one RCT, two CCTs, and four controlled BAs. The findings revealed mixed effects of interventions on patients identified using RS tools. Among the included studies, four reported significant reductions in ED visits. Two studies reported an increase in outpatient visits. Hospitalization rates were reduced in three studies, and two studies reported significant reductions in overall mortality. However, the impact on healthcare costs was inconclusive.

conclusionsThe evidence on the effectiveness of RS tools for chronic disease management in primary care settings remains limited. While some studies demonstrated positive outcomes in reducing hospitalizations, ED visits, and mortality, the overall impact on outpatient service use and healthcare costs varied. Further high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of RS tools in chronic disease management within primary care.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementPrimary Health CareChronic DiseaseHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentChronic illnessHealth services researchPrimary health careRisk stratification toolsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40205373
PMCPMC11983763

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.