Patient- and family-centred care transition interventions for adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although patient centredness is part of providing high-quality health care, little is known about the effectiveness of care transition interventions that involve patients and their families on readmissions to the hospital or emergency visits post-discharge. This systematic review (SR) aimed to examine the evidence on patient- and family-centred (PFC) care transition interventions and evaluate their effectiveness on adults' hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after discharge. Searches of Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases were conducted from the earliest available online year of indexing up to and including 14 March 2021. The studies included: (i) were about care transitions (hospital to home) of ≥18-year-old patients; (ii) had components of patient-centred care and care transition frameworks; (iii) reported on one or more outcomes were among hospital readmissions and ED visits after discharge; and (iv) were cluster-, pilot- or randomized-controlled trials published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed, and pooled odd ratios, standardized mean differences, and mean differences were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Of the 10,021 citations screened, 50 trials were included in the SR and 44 were included in the meta-analyses. Care transition intervention types included health assessment, symptom and disease management, medication reconciliation, discharge planning, risk management, complication detection, and emotional support. Results showed that PFC care transition interventions significantly reduced the risk of hospital readmission rates compared to usual care [incident rate ratio (IRR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.98; I2 = 73%] regardless of time elapsed since discharge. However, these same interventions had minimal impact on the risk of ED visit rates compared to usual care group regardless of time passed after discharge (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.18; I2 = 29%). PFC care transition interventions containing a greater number of patient-centred care (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; I2 = 59%) and care transition components (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; I2 = 4%) significantly decreased the risk of patients being readmitted. However, these interventions did not significantly increase the risk of patients visiting the ED after discharge (IRR, 1.54; CI 95%, 0.91-2.61). Future interventions should focus on patients' and families' values, beliefs, needs, preferences, race, age, gender, and social determinants of health to improve the quality of adults' care transitions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".