ReviewJRSM open2026
How should services for high-intensity users be organised? A scoping review of published literature with recommendations for future research and delivery of care.
Review in JRSM open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: High Intensity Users (HIUs) of Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) services account for disproportionately high numbers of Emergency Department (ED) attendances, ambulance journeys and non-elective admissions. This review aimed to assess the quality and completeness of evidence for understanding the characteristics of HIUs, how best to identify and differentiate them, the effectiveness of services to support them, and to identify areas for further research. Design: Scoping review of UK-based peer-reviewed literature. Setting: Four databases (January 2010 to October 2025) - additional grey literature identified through hand searching and Google searches. Participants: Twenty-eight published articles (19 peer-reviewed papers, 9 grey literature). Main outcome measures: HIU definitions, descriptions, effectiveness of care, characteristics of successful programmes and interventions. Results: HIUs are generally defined by the frequency of UEC use rather than diagnosis or need, despite being highly heterogeneous. The national model of care adopted in England relies largely on individual Case Managers supporting small numbers of HIUs. Although most published evaluations report reductions in ED attendances and admissions, and positive impacts on individual well-being, they are generally small, uncontrolled, and short-term with poorly defined interventions and minimal evidence that they reduce overall demand on UEC services. Conclusions: Further research is needed to better characterise HIUs, drivers of their behaviour and risk factors to determine which HIUs benefit from which interventions. Services need to operate at scale using near-real time data, be integrated with health as well as social care services, and use standardised, granular definitions of HIUs to guide appropriate interventions.
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.