Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684090›Full record

GuidelineBMC primary care2025

Stratifying the population based on health risk: identification of patient key health risk factors through consensus techniques.

Carolina Castagna, Andrew Huff, Aaron Douglas, Matteo Garofano, Massimo Fabi, Richard Hass, Vittorio Maio

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Carolina CastagnaJefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, 901 Walnut Street, 10th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Andrew HuffJefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, 901 Walnut Street, 10th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Aaron DouglasAsano-Gonnella Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
Matteo GarofanoLocal Health Authority of Parma, Parma, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Massimo FabiLocal Health Authority of Parma, Parma, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Richard HassJefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, 901 Walnut Street, 10th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Vittorio MaioJefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, 901 Walnut Street, 10th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Vittorio.maio@jefferson.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk stratification is a population health management approach that classifies patients according to their health risks and projected care needs. This strategy is especially valuable in primary care, where timely interventions for high-risk individuals can lead to better health outcomes, reduced healthcare expenditures, and a more sustainable healthcare system. The goal of this study was to establish expert consensus on the clinical and sociodemographic patient factors that should be incorporated into a primary care risk stratification tool.

methodsA multidisciplinary expert panel of 24 healthcare professionals, including primary care providers (PCPs), specialists, and allied health professionals, was convened in June 2024 by Local Health Authority of Parma, Italy. Using the Nominal Group Technique, the panel was asked to define 'health risk' and identify contributing factors based on clinical and social relevance and data availability in patients' PCP electronic medical records. A modified Delphi process, following ACCORD guidelines for consensus-based methods, was conducted in three rounds (July-October 2024) to derive numerical weights for the factors. Survey questions rated the perceived importance of factors using a Likert scale (1 = no importance to 9 = critical importance). Consensus, defined as ≥ 75% agreement among panelists, set each factor's weight to the median importance rating.

resultsHealth risk was defined as "the likelihood of a progressive deterioration of an individual's health status due to medical and/or psychosocial-welfare conditions that could lead to hospitalization or death within a year." A total of 31 clinical and social factors were identified, and consensus about importance was achieved for all factors. Higher-weighted factors included advanced age, excessive polypharmacy, cancer, cognitive impairment, and social-psychological distress, followed by clinical conditions such as renal failure, stroke, and heart failure, and previous hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

conclusionsThe tool provides a robust framework for population health risk stratification in primary care, aligning with Italy's healthcare reform goals. Future phases will validate the tool's predictive performance using patient-level PCP data and assess its implications for policy and practice.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdultConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsConsensus methodsDelphiHealth risk factorsNominal group techniquePopulation health managementPrimary careRisk stratificationSociodemographic risk factors

Identifiers

PMID40684090
PMCPMC12275309

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.