SynthesisBMC health services research2025
Assessing the impact of intermediate care interventions on healthcare and patient-related outcomes: a systematic overview of systematic reviews.
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 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigating Performance, Functional Outcomes, and Patient Autonomy in a Rural Community Hospital: A Real-Life Descriptive Cohort Study of Territorial Intermediate Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIntermediate care interventions are widely used to support patients transitioning between hospital and home, aiming to reduce the burden on acute healthcare services. The effectiveness however of such interventions remains unclear. Previous reviews have highlighted mixed findings, with limited high-quality evidence available to guide policy and practice. AIM &
objectivesThis overview aims to assess the impact of intermediate care interventions on key outcomes such as hospital length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, mortality, quality of life (QoL), and healthcare costs in developed countries. This overview has two key objectives: (i) to map existing widely-disseminated intermediate care interventions, and (ii) summarise evidence regarding the effectiveness of such interventions.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of eight databases up to February 2024. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses assessing intermediate care interventions in OECD developed countries were included. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using AMSTAR 2. Data on length of stay (LOS), ED visits, readmissions, mortality, quality of life (QoL), and costs were extracted and synthesised.
resultsTwenty-two reviews (570 unique primary studies) were included. Consistent evidence showed transitional care interventions (TCIs), rapid response teams, and virtual wards (VWs) were effective in reducing in-hospital LOS and ED/hospital readmissions. TCIs, person- and family-centred care, VWs, and telephone-based interventions were generally effective in lowering subsequent ED visits. Limited evidence supported effectiveness in reducing mortality, with VWs showing the most promise. No clear evidence was found for improving QoL. Cost-effectiveness findings were inconclusive. Most reviews reported low overall confidence ratings, and reviews reported that about half of primary studies were rated high risk of bias. DISCUSSION: While intermediate care interventions show promise in addressing ED overcrowding, the generally low-certainty evidence highlights the need for further high-quality research. Future studies should focus on long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and identifying the most effective intervention components across different patient populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024502585.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.