MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410148611 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.06.25327087

Economic evaluation of hospital-to-home transition interventions: a rapid review protocol

2025· review· en· W4410148611 on OpenAlexaff
Evan MacEachern, Michelle Nelson, Jaylyn Leighton, Marianne Saragosa, Ian D. Graham, Kristina M. Kokorelias

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Transition (genetics)MedicineNursingAlternative medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Transitions from hospital to home represent a critical juncture associated with hospital readmissions and increased healthcare costs. While interventions exist to improve care transitions, the economic value of these interventions remains limited. By synthesizing economic evaluations of transition interventions, healthcare systems can identify cost-effective strategies to reduce costs and readmission rates to improve outcomes for patients and providers. Objectives 1) Identify the types of economic analyses commonly applied in hospital-to-home evaluations; 2) summarize the financial implications and economic value of these interventions; 3) compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions across care settings and patient populations. Methods We will conduct a rapid review to summarize existing literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving hospital-to-home transitions. We will search electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL) to identify studies assessing the economic impact of transition interventions on patient and health system outcomes. We will focus on economic studies, including cost studies, cost-consequence analyses, cost-minimization analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-benefit analyses, or cost-utility analyses, to understand the economic value of these interventions for both healthcare systems and patients. Implication Evidence on the economic benefits of hospital-to-home interventions can guide efficient and sustainable resource allocation in healthcare systems. Investing in sustainable transition interventions has the potential to lower overall healthcare expenditures while enhancing patient satisfaction and improving health outcomes. We hypothesize that this review will reveal that targeted strategies, such as enhanced discharge planning and home-based discharge supports, can achieve significant cost savings by reducing hospital readmissions and improving patient adherence to post-discharge care plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.019
Bibliometrics0.0190.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→